Cost of healthcare for patients with migraine in five European countries: results from the International Burden of Migraine Study (IBMS).

Migraine is a disabling neurological disease that affects 14.7 % of Europeans. Studies evaluating the economic impact of migraine are complex to conduct adequately and with time become outdated as healthcare systems evolve. This study sought to quantify and compare direct medical costs of chronic migraine (CM) and episodic migraine (EM) in five European countries. Cross-sectional data collected via a web-based survey were screened for migraine and classified as CM (≥15 headache days/month) or EM (<15 headache days/month), and included sociodemographics, resource use data and medication use. Unit cost data, gathered using publicly available sources, were analyzed for each type of service, stratified by migraine status. Univariate and multivariate log-normal regression models were used to examine the relationship between various factors and their impact on total healthcare costs. This economic analysis included data from respondents with migraine in the UK, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain. CM participants had higher level of disability and more prevalent psychiatric disorders compared to EM. CM participants had more provider visits, emergency department/hospital visits, and diagnostic tests; the medical costs were three times higher for CM than EM. Per patient annual costs were highest in the UK and Spain and lower in France and Germany. CM was associated with higher medical resource use and total costs compared to EM in all study countries, suggesting that treatments that reduce headache frequency could decrease the clinical and economic burden of migraine in Europe. Comparing patterns of care and outcomes among countries may facilitate the development of more cost-effective care, and bring greater recognition to patients affected by migraine.

OnabotulinumtoxinA improves quality of life and reduces impact of chronic migraine.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox, Allergan, Inc., Irvine, CA) on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and headache impact in adults with chronic migraine (CM). METHODS: The Phase III Research Evaluating Migraine Prophylaxis Therapy (PREEMPT) clinical program (PREEMPT 1 and 2) included a 24-week, double-blind phase (2 12-week cycles) followed by a 32-week, open-label phase (3 cycles). Thirty-one injections of 5U each (155 U of onabotulinumtoxinA or placebo) were administered to fixed sites. An additional 40 U could be administered "following the pain." Prespecified analysis of headache impact (Headache Impact Test [HIT]-6) and HRQoL (Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire v2.1 [MSQ]) assessments were performed. Because the studies were similar in design and did not notably differ in outcome, pooled results are presented here. RESULTS: A total of 1,384 subjects were included in the pooled analyses (onabotulinumtoxinA, n = 688; placebo, n = 696). Baseline mean total HIT-6 and MSQ v2.1 scores were comparable between groups; 93.1% were severely impacted based on HIT-6 scores ≥60. At 24 weeks, in comparison with placebo, onabotulinumtoxinA treatment significantly reduced HIT-6 scores and the proportion of patients with HIT-6 scores in the severe range at all timepoints including week 24 (p < 0.001). OnabotulinumtoxinA treatment significantly improved all domains of the MSQ v2.1 at 24 weeks (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of CM with onabotulinumtoxinA is associated with significant and clinically meaningful reductions in headache impact and improvements in HRQoL. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class 1A evidence that onabotulinumtoxinA treatment reduces headache impact and improves HRQoL.

Disability, HRQoL and resource use among chronic and episodic migraineurs: results from the International Burden of Migraine Study (IBMS).

BACKGROUND: Migraine imposes significant burden on patients, their families and health care systems. In this study, we compared episodic to chronic migraine sufferers to determine if migraine status predicted headache-related disability, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and health care resource utilization. METHODS: A Web-based survey was administered to panelists from nine countries. Participants were classified as having chronic migraine (CM), episodic migraine (EM) or neither using a validated questionnaire. Data collected and then analyzed included sociodemographics, clinical characteristics, Migraine Disability Assessment, Migraine-Specific Quality of Life v2.1, Patient Health Questionnaire and health care resource utilization. FINDINGS: Of the respondents, 5.7% had CM and 94.3% had EM, with CM patients reporting significantly more severe disability, lower HRQoL, higher levels of anxiety and depression and greater health care resource utilization compared to those with EM. INTERPRETATION: These results provide evidence that will enhance our understanding of the factors driving health care costs and will contribute to development of cost-effective health care strategies.

Preference and satisfaction with a 6-month subcutaneous injection versus a weekly tablet for treatment of low bone mass.

UNLABELLED: The Preference and Satisfaction Questionnaire (PSQ) compares patient preference and satisfaction between a 6-month subcutaneous injection and weekly oral tablet for treatment of bone loss. Patients preferred and were more satisfied with a treatment that was administered less frequently, suggesting the acceptability of the 6-month injection for treatment of bone loss. INTRODUCTION: The PSQ compares patient preference and satisfaction between a 6-month subcutaneous injection and a weekly oral tablet for treatment of bone loss. METHODS: Postmenopausal women with low bone mass who enrolled in two separate randomized phase 3 double-blind, double-dummy studies received a 6-month subcutaneous denosumab injection (60 mg) plus a weekly oral placebo or a weekly alendronate tablet (70 mg) plus a 6-month subcutaneous placebo injection. After 12 months, patients completed the PSQ to rate their preference, satisfaction, and degree of bother with each regimen. RESULTS: Most enrolled patients (1,583 out of 1,693; 93.5%) answered >or=1 item of the PSQ. Significantly more patients preferred and were more satisfied with the 6-month injection versus the weekly tablet (P < 0.001). More patients reported no bother with the 6-month injection (90%) than the weekly tablet (62%). CONCLUSION: Patients preferred, were more satisfied, and less bothered with a 6-month injection regimen for osteoporosis.

Design of the POSSIBLE UStrade mark Study: postmenopausal women's compliance and persistence with osteoporosis medications.

UNLABELLED: Failure to take prescribed medication is common. The POSSIBLE US study is evaluating the impact of physician and patient characteristics on patient-reported compliance and persistence with osteoporosis medications. We report our study design and the baseline characteristics of 4,994 postmenopausal women recruited from primary care physician offices in 33 states. INTRODUCTION: The Prospective Observational Scientific Study Investigating Bone Loss Experience (POSSIBLE US) is a longitudinal cohort study of osteoporosis therapy in primary care. METHODS: Between 2004 and 2007, 134 physicians (in 33 states) enrolled postmenopausal women initiating, changing, or continuing osteoporosis medications. After completing a baseline questionnaire, participants will provide data semi-annually for up to 3 years through 2008. Physicians provide patient data at baseline and routine follow-up visits. Participants from 23 sites also signed a release regarding administrative claims data for economic analyses and validation of self-reported data. BASELINE RESULTS: Four thousand nine hundred and ninety-four evaluable women were recruited from internal medicine (n = 1,784), family practice (n = 1,556), obstetrics/gynecology (n = 1,556), and from one rheumatology practice (n = 98). Mean participant age was 64.3 years (SD = 9.97); 89% were Caucasian; 59% had some college education. Sixty-three percent used a single osteoporosis agent, usually a bisphosphonate. For monotherapy patients, concordance between clinic- and patient-reported medication use was lowest for patients prescribed estrogen therapy (70%) or calcium/vitamin D (72%). Obstetrician/gynecologists enrolled younger women, who were more likely to use estrogen therapy than patients enrolled by other physicians. The 934 women (19%) prescribed only calcium/vitamin D were younger than women prescribed pharmacologic therapy. CONCLUSIONS: POSSIBLE US provides a unique foundation for evaluating longitudinal use of osteoporosis medications and related outcomes.