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

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

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

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

Real-world treatment patterns and outcomes in platinum-sensitive recurrent high-grade serous ovarian cancer patients.

Aim: To describe the overall cancer-related healthcare utilization patterns, treatment patterns and outcomes in women diagnosed with platinum-sensitive recurrent high-grade serous ovarian cancer. Patients & methods: Subanalysis of the Spanish sample of a retrospective, noninterventional, multinational, observational study. Results:BRCA-mutated patients had better outcomes in terms of progression-free survival and overall survival than patients who were BRCA wild-type. It was observed that patients' treatment outcomes after the first recurrence progressively worsened as the patient underwent subsequent chemotherapy lines. Healthcare resource utilization when accounting for the follow-up time did not substantially differ between BRCA1/2-mutated and BRCA wild-type patients. Conclusion:BRCA1/2 mutation carriers have better treatment outcomes, including longer survival, without a negative impact on the use of healthcare resources.

Olaparib as first line in BRCA-mutated advanced ovarian carcinoma: Is it cost-effective in Spain?

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of olaparib after being funded by the Spanish National Health Service (SNHS) as first-line monotherapy maintenance treatment in patients with advanced high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma (HGSOC) and BRCA mutations in Spain. METHODS: A semi-Markov model with one-month cycles was adapted to the Spanish healthcare setting, using the perspective of the SNHS, and a time horizon of 50 years. Two scenarios were compared: receiving olaparib vs. no maintenance treatment. The model comprised four health states and included the clinical results of the SOLO1 study, along with the direct healthcare costs associated with the use of first-line and subsequent treatment resources (2020 €). A discount rate of 3% was applied for future cost and quality-of-life outcomes. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was also carried out and a cost-effectiveness threshold of €25,000 per quality adjusted life year (QALY) was considered. RESULTS: The introduction of olaparib as a first-line maintenance treatment for advanced HGSOC patients with BRCA mutations implied a cost of €131,614.98 compared to €102,369.54 without olaparib (difference: €29,245.44), with an improvement of 2.00 QALYs (5.56 and 3.57, respectively). Therefore, olaparib is cost-effective for advanced HGSOC patients with BRCA mutations, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €14,653.2/QALY. The results from the PSA showed that 92.1% of the simulations fell below the €25,000/QALY threshold. The model showed that olaparib could improve the overall survival by 2 years, vs. no maintenance treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Olaparib as first-line maintenance treatment is cost-effective in advanced HGSOC patients with BRCA mutations in Spain.

Cost-utility analysis of germline BRCA1/2 testing in women with high-grade epithelial ovarian cancer in Spain.

PURPOSE: Germline mutations in BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 genes (gBRCA1/2m) are associated with an increased risk of breast cancer (BC) and ovarian cancer (OC). The aim of this study was to estimate the efficiency of providing germline BRCA1/2 testing to high-grade epithelial ovarian cancer (HGEOC) patients without family history of OC or BC and the subsequent testing and management of their relatives with gBRCA1/2m in Spain. METHODS/PATIENTS: Incident HGEOC patients without family history of OC or BC who were gBRCA1/2m carriers and their relatives were simulated in a 50-year time horizon. The study compared two scenarios: BRCA1/2 testing vs no testing, using the perspective of the Spanish National Health Service. Cancer risk among gBRCA1/2m carriers was estimated based on their age and whether they had undergone risk-reducing surgeries. Direct healthcare costs and utilities of patients who developed EOC and BC were also included. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) with 5 thousand simulations was developed considering ± 25% of the base-case value. RESULTS: The BRCA1/2-testing scenario amounted to €13,437,897.43 while the no-testing scenario amounted to €12,053,291.17. It was estimated that the screening test improved the quality of life among the patients' relatives by 43.8 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was €31,621.33/QALY in the base case. The PSA showed that 89.12% of the simulations were below the €50,000/QALY threshold. CONCLUSION: Providing this screening test to HGEOC patients and their relatives is cost-effective and it allows one to identify a target population with high risk of cancer to provide effective prevention strategies.

The economic burden of disease of epithelial ovarian cancer in Spain: the OvarCost study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the economic burden of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) in incident patients and the burden by disease stage in Spain. METHODS: We developed a Markov model from a social perspective simulating the natural history of EOC and its four stages, with a 10-year time horizon, 3-week cycles, 3% discount rate, and 2016 euros. Healthcare resource utilization and costs were estimated by disease stage. Direct healthcare costs (DHC) included early screening, genetic counselling, medical visits, diagnostic tests, surgery, chemotherapy, hospitalizations, emergency services, and palliative care. Direct non-healthcare costs (DNHC) included formal and informal care. Indirect costs (IC) included labour productivity losses due to temporary and permanent leaves, and premature death. Epidemiology data and resource use were taken from the literature and validated for Spain by the OvarCost group using a Delphi method. RESULTS: The total burden of EOC over 10 years was 3102 mill euros: 15.1% in stage I, 3.9% in stage II, 41.0% in stage III, and 40.2% in stage IV. Annual average cost/patient was €24,111 and it was €8,641; €14,184; €33,858, and €42,547 in stages I-IV, respectively. Of total costs, 71.2% were due to DHC, 24.7% to DNHC, and 4.1% to IC. CONCLUSIONS: EOC imposes a significant economic burden on the national healthcare system and society in Spain. Investment in better early diagnosis techniques might increase survival and patients' quality of life. This would likely reduce costs derived from late stages, consequently leading to a substantial reduction of the economic burden associated with EOC.