Trends and prescribing patterns of antimigraine medicines in nine major cities in China from 2018 to 2022: a retrospective prescription analysis.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to investigate the trends and prescribing patterns of antimigraine medicines in China. METHODS: The prescription data of outpatients diagnosed with migraine between 2018 and 2022 were extracted from the Hospital Prescription Analysis Cooperative Project of China. The demographic characteristics of migraine patients, prescription trends, and corresponding expenditures on antimigraine medicines were analyzed. We also investigated prescribing patterns of combination therapy and medicine overuse. RESULTS: A total of 32,246 outpatients who were diagnosed with migraine at 103 hospitals were included in this study. There were no significant trend changes in total outpatient visits, migraine prescriptions, or corresponding expenditures during the study period. Of the patients who were prescribed therapeutic medicines, 70.23% received analgesics, and 26.41% received migraine-specific agents. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs; 28.03%), caffeine-containing agents (22.15%), and opioids (16.00%) were the most commonly prescribed analgesics, with corresponding cost proportions of 11.35%, 4.08%, and 19.61%, respectively. Oral triptans (26.12%) were the most commonly prescribed migraine-specific agents and accounted for 62.21% of the total therapeutic expenditures. The proportion of patients receiving analgesic prescriptions increased from 65.25% in 2018 to 75.68% in 2022, and the proportion of patients receiving concomitant triptans decreased from 29.54% in 2018 to 21.55% in 2022 (both P <  0.001). The most frequently prescribed preventive medication classes were calcium channel blockers (CCBs; 51.59%), followed by antidepressants (20.59%) and anticonvulsants (15.82%), which accounted for 21.90%, 34.18%, and 24.15%, respectively, of the total preventive expenditures. Flunarizine (51.41%) was the most commonly prescribed preventive drug. Flupentixol/melitracen (7.53%) was the most commonly prescribed antidepressant. The most commonly prescribed anticonvulsant was topiramate (9.33%), which increased from 6.26% to 12.75% (both P <  0.001). A total of 3.88% of the patients received combined therapy for acute migraine treatment, and 18.63% received combined therapy for prevention. The prescriptions for 69.21% of opioids, 38.53% of caffeine-containing agents, 26.61% of NSAIDs, 13.97% of acetaminophen, and 6.03% of triptans were considered written medicine overuse. CONCLUSIONS: Migraine treatment gradually converges toward evidence-based and guideline-recommended treatment. Attention should be given to opioid prescribing, weak evidence-based antidepressant use, and medication overuse in migraine treatment.

Cost-effectiveness of rimegepant oral lyophilisate compared to best supportive care for the acute treatment of migraine in the UK.

AIMS: Migraine is the most common disabling headache disorder and is characterized by recurrent throbbing head pain and symptoms of photophobia, phonophobia, nausea, and vomiting. Rimegepant 75 mg, an oral lyophilisate calcitonin gene-related peptide antagonist, is the first treatment approved for both the acute and preventative treatment of migraine, and the first acute therapy approved in over 20-years. The objective was to assess the cost-utility of rimegepant compared with best supportive care (BSC) in the UK, for the acute treatment of migraine in the adults with inadequate symptom relief after taking at least 2 triptans, or for whom triptans are contraindicated or not tolerated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A de novo model was developed to estimate incremental costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), structured as a decision tree followed by Markov model. Patients received rimegepant or BSC for a migraine attack and were assessed for response (pain relief at 2-h). Responders and non-responders followed different pain trajectories over 48-h cycles. Non-responders discontinued treatment while responders continued treatment for subsequent attacks, with a proportion discontinuing over time. Data sources included a post-hoc pooled analysis of the phase 3 acute rimegepant trials (NCT03235479, NCT03237845, NCT03461757), and a long-term safety study (NCT03266588). The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the UK National Health Service and Personal Social Services over a 20-year time horizon. RESULTS: Rimegepant resulted in an incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of £10,309 per QALY gained vs BSC, which is cost-effectiveness at a willingness to pay threshold of £30,000/QALY. Rimegepant generated +0.44 incremental QALYs and higher incremental lifetime costs (£4,492). Improved QALYs for rimegepant were a result of less time spent with severe and moderate headache pain. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the economic value of rimegepant which was found to be cost-effective for the acute treatment of migraine in adults unsuitable for triptans.

Impact of headache frequency and preventive treatment failure on quality of life, disability, and direct and indirect costs among individuals with episodic migraine in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate unmet needs among individuals with episodic migraine (EM) in the United States (US). BACKGROUND: Data are limited on the impact of headache frequency (HF) and preventive treatment failure (TF) on the burden of migraine in the US. METHODS: A retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of 2019 National Health and Wellness Survey (NHWS) data was conducted from an opt-in online survey that identified respondents (aged ≥18 years) in the US with self-reported physician-diagnosed migraine. Participants were stratified by HF (low: 0-3 days/month; moderate-to-high: 4-14 days/month) and prior preventive TF (preventive naive; 0-1 TF; ≥2 TFs). Comparisons were conducted between preventive TF groups using multivariable regression models controlling for patient demographic and health characteristics. RESULTS: Among individuals with moderate-to-high frequency EM, the NHWS identified 397 with ≥2 TFs, 334 with 0-1 TF, and 356 as preventive naive. The 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (version 2) Physical Component Summary scores were significantly lower among those with ≥2 TFs, at a mean (standard error [SE]) of 41.4 [0.8] versus the preventive-naive 46.8 [0.9] and 0-1 TF 44.5 [0.9] groups; p < 0.001 for both). Migraine Disability Assessment Scale scores were significantly higher in the ≥2 TFs, at a mean (SE) of 37.7 (3.9) versus preventive-naive 26.8 (2.9) (p < 0.001) and 0-1 TF 30.1 (3.3) (p = 0.011) groups. The percentages of time that respondents experienced absenteeism (mean [SE] 21.6% [5.5%] vs. 13.4% [3.6%]; p = 0.022), presenteeism (mean [SE] 55.0% [8.3%] vs. 40.8% [6.5%]; p = 0.015), overall work impairment (mean [SE] 59.4% [5.6%] vs. 45.0% [4.4%]; p < 0.001), and activity impairment (mean [SE] 56.8% [1.0%] vs. 44.4% [0.9%]; p < 0.001) were significantly higher in the ≥2 TFs versus preventive-naive group. Emergency department visits (preventive-naive, p = 0.006; 0-1 TF, p = 0.008) and hospitalizations (p < 0.001 both) in the past 6 months were significantly higher in the ≥2 TFs group. Direct and indirect costs were significantly higher in the ≥2 TFs (mean [SE] $24,026 [3460]; $22,074 [20]) versus 0-1 TF ($10,897 [1636]; $17,965 [17]) and preventive-naive ($11,497 [1715]; $17,167 [17]) groups (p < 0.001 for all). Results were similar in the low-frequency EM group. CONCLUSIONS: In this NHWS analysis, individuals with more prior preventive TFs experienced significantly higher humanistic and economic burden regardless of HF.

Efficacy of a pediatric headache infusion center: A single-center experience.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of a pediatric headache infusion center (HIC) in alleviating the symptoms and preventing future visits to the emergency department (ED). BACKGROUND: Headache is a common reason for visits to the pediatric ED. ED visits are associated with inordinate costs of care and are conceived by parents to be avoidable if adequate alternatives are available. An infusion center for acute treatment of intractable headache in children with chronic migraine may be an effective alternative to an ED visit. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of data from a single-center cohort of patients with a known history of chronic migraine, presenting to Dayton Children's HIC with an acute migraine from June 1, 2017 to June 1, 2020. Patients were treated according to established protocols divided into two pathways. Patient demographics, clinical characteristics, pre- and postinfusion pain scores, ED visits and inpatient admissions within 2 weeks of HIC visit, and ED visits 1 year prior and 1 year after the HIC visit were noted. RESULTS: A total of 297 HIC visits were analyzed from 201 patients. The HIC was effective in controlling symptoms with a significant reduction in pain score (median [interquartile range; IQR] 7.0 [2.0] preinfusion vs. 1.0 [2.0] postinfusion, p < 0.001). Only 25/297 (8.4%) patients came to the ED within 2 weeks of the HIC visit, and an even smaller number of patients (20/297, 6.7%) were admitted as inpatients within 2 weeks of the HIC visit. The number of ED visits was significantly reduced in the year after the HIC visit compared with the year prior (median [IQR] 1.0 [2.0] before vs. 0.0 [1.0] after, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: A pediatric HIC is effective in alleviating the symptoms and preventing ED visits. These centers should be considered as standard of care at children's hospitals.

Analysis of treatment cost and persistence among migraineurs: A two-year retrospective cohort study in Pakistan.

OBJECTIVES: The persistence pattern of anti-migraine drugs' use among migraineurs is very low in the United States and different European countries. However, the cost and persistence of antimigraine drugs in Asian countries have not been well-studied. Hence, the present study aimed to evaluate the treatment cost and persistence among migraineurs in Pakistan. METHODS: Data from prescriptions collected from migraineurs who visited the Outpatient Department (OPD) of different public and private sector tertiary-care hospitals of Karachi, Pakistan were used to conduct this retrospective cohort study from 2017 to 2019. The minimum follow up period for each migraineur was about 12 months for persistence analysis while dropped-out patients data were also included in survival analysis as right censored data. Pairwise comparisons from Cox regression/hazards ratio were used to assess the predictors of persistence with the reference category of non-binary variables i.e. hazard ratio = 1 for low frequency migraineurs and NSAIDs users. Persistence with anti-migraine drugs was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier curve along with the Log Rank test. RESULTS: A total of 1597 patients were included in this study, 729 (45.6%) were male and 868 (54.3%) were female. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) were the most prescribed class of drug initially for all classes of migraineurs (26.1%). Of them, 57.3% of migraineurs discontinued their treatment, 28.5% continued while 14.8% were switched to other treatment approaches. Persistence with initial treatment was more profound in female (58.8%) patients compared to males while the median age of continuers was 31 years. The total cost of migraine treatment in the entire study cohort was 297532.5 Pakistani Rupees ($1901.1). By estimating the hazard ratios (HR) using the Cox regression analysis, it can be observed that patients with high frequency (HR, 1.628; 95%CI, 1.221-2.179; p<0.0001) migraine, depression (HR, 1.268; 95%CI, 1.084-1.458; p<0.0001), increasing age (HR, 1.293; 95%CI, 1.092-1.458; p<0.0001), combination analgesics (HR, 1.817; 95%CI, 0.841-2.725; p = 0.0004) and prophylaxis drugs (HR, 1.314; 95%CI, 0.958-1.424; p<0.0001) users were at a higher risk of treatment discontinuation. However, patients with chronic migraine (HR, 0.881; 95%CI, 0.762-0.912; p = 0.0002), epileptic seizure (HR, 0.922; 95%CI, 0.654-1.206; p = 0.0002), other comorbidities (HR, 0.671; 95%CI, 0.352-1.011; p = 0.0003) and users of triptan(s) (HR, 0.701; 95%CI, 0.182-1.414; p = 0.0005) and triptan(s) with NSAIDs (HR, 0.758; 95%CI, 0.501-1.289; p<0.0001) had more chances to continue their initial therapy. CONCLUSION: Similar to western countries, the majority of migraineurs exhibited poor persistence to migraine treatments. Various factors of improved persistence were identified in this study.

Cost of fremanezumab, erenumab, galcanezumab and onabotulinumtoxinA associated adverse events, for migraine prophylaxis in Spain.

Objective: To compare the cost of adverse events (AEs) associated with preventive treatment of migraine with fremanezumab, versus erenumab, galcanezumab, and onabotulinumtoxinA.Methods: A probabilistic modeling analysis was performed, using second-order Monte Carlo simulations, with 1,000 simulations, in patients with at least 4 days of migraine per month, from the perspective of the National Health System and a time horizon of 12 weeks. The frequency of AEs described in the clinical trials was analyzed with 12 weeks of treatment. Unit costs (€) of management of AEs were obtained from public health prices, expert panels, and published Spanish studies.Results: Fremanezumab would generate average savings of -€469 (95% CI -€303; -€674) versus erenumab, -€268 (95% CI -€171; -€391) versus galcanezumab, -€1,100 (95% CI -€704; -€1,608) or -€1,295 (95% CI -€835; -€1,893) versus onabotulinumtoxinA using real-life or clinical trial data, respectively.Conclusions: The different safety profile of treatment with fremanezumab, compared to erenumab, galcanezumab, and onabotulinumtoxinA, would generate savings in health-care resources in all the scenarios considered.

The effectiveness and value of novel acute treatments for migraine.

DISCLOSURES: Funding for this summary was contributed by Arnold Ventures, California Health Care Foundation, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan to the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, Allergan, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of CA, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Express Scripts, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, HealthFirst, Health Partners, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Pfizer, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, and United Healthcare. Agboola, Borrelli, Rind, and Pearson are employed by ICER. Touchette, through the University of Illinois at Chicago, received funding from ICER for development of the economic model described in this publication. Atlas has nothing to disclose.

Treatment patterns, health resource consumption, and costs of patients with migraine in an Italian real-world setting.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to describe the demographic and clinical characteristics of migraineurs prescribed ≥1 migraine prophylactic therapy, and to analyze their therapeutic pathways, healthcare resource consumption, and related costs. METHODS: This retrospective analysis was based on administrative databases from two regions and three local health units in Italy. Adult patients with ≥1 discharge diagnosis for migraine or ≥1 prescription for migraine-specific drugs, or ≥1 emergency room visit for migraine from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2016 were included if they had received ≥1 migraine prophylactic therapy between 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2015 (enrollment period). The first date of the last migraine prophylactic treatment was considered as the index date (ID). Patients were characterized 1-year prior ID and followed-up for 1 year afterwards. RESULTS: Of the 166,362 identified migraineurs, 32,794 (mean age: 45.9 ± 13.9 years, 19.2% male) who received migraine prophylaxis were included in the analysis. At ID, 31,629 patients had received 1 prophylactic treatment with antidepressants (51.2%), neuromodulators (28.1%), beta blockers (12.4%), other migraine preparations (7.8%), and botulinum toxin A (0.5%). Focusing on patients with one prophylactic treatment at ID, 85.4% did not have any previous therapeutic failures whereas 14.6% had ≥1 previous failure. During follow-up, 5% of patients made a therapeutic switch after a mean period of 103.4 ± 97.9 days. Total mean annual cost for patients receiving migraine prophylaxis was 1193.64€ during characterization and 1303.86€ during follow-up periods. CONCLUSION: This real-world study gave insights on the characterization of migraineurs and patterns of prophylaxis utilization in Italian clinical settings, showing an underuse of prophylactic agents.

The Health and Productivity Burden of Migraines in Australia.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to quantify the health and productivity burden of migraines in Australia, measured by quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), productivity-adjusted life years (PALYs, a novel measure of productivity), and associated health-care and broader economic costs. METHODS: A Markov state-transition model was constructed to simulate follow-up of Australians aged 20-64 years over the next 10 years. The model was first run using current prevalence estimates of migraine. It was then rerun assuming that people with migraine hypothetically did not have the condition. Differences in outcomes between the 2 model simulations represented the health and productivity burden attributable to migraine. All data inputs were obtained from published sources. Gross domestic product (GDP) per equivalent full-time worker in Australia was used to reflect the cost of each PALY (AU$177,092). Future costs and outcomes were discounted by 5% annually. RESULTS: Currently, 1,274,319 million (8.5%) Australians aged 20-64 years have migraine. Over the next 10 years, migraine was predicted to lead to a loss of 2,577,783 (95% confidence interval [CI] 2,054,980 to 3,000,784) QALYs among this cohort (2.02 per person and 2.43% of total QALYs), and AU$1.67 (95% CI $1.16 to $2.37) billion in health-care costs (AU$1313 per person, 95% CI $914 to $1862). There would also be 384,740 (95% CI 299,102 to 479,803) PALYs lost (0.30 per person and 0.53% of total PALYs), resulting in AU$68.13 (95% CI $44.42 to $98.25) billion of lost GDP (AU$53,467 per person, 95% CI $34,855 to $77,102). CONCLUSION: Migraines impose a substantial health and economic burden on Australians of working age. Funding interventions that reduce the prevalence of migraines and/or its effects are likely to provide sound return on investment.

Identifying Outcome Measures for Migraine Value-Based Contracting Using the Delphi Method.

OBJECTIVE: To identify meaningful migraine outcome measures among key stakeholders to inform value-based contracts for migraine medications. BACKGROUND: Value-based contracts linking medication payments to predefined performance metrics aim to promote value through aligned incentives and shared risk between manufacturers and payers. The emergence of new and expensive pharmaceuticals for migraine presents an opportunity for value-based contract development. However, uncertainty remains around which outcomes are most meaningful to all migraine stakeholders. METHODS: This study utilized a Delphi survey to incorporate views from 82 stakeholders, including patients (n = 21), providers (n = 23), payers (n = 10), employers (n = 18), and pharmaceutical company representatives (n = 10). A list of 15 migraine-related outcomes was created from a literature review and subject matter expert consultation. Stakeholders reported on the value of these outcomes through a 5-point Likert scale and selection of their top 3 most meaningful outcomes. All participants except patients and employers also used a 5-point Likert scale to rate the feasibility of collecting each outcome measure. Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement on the importance and feasibility of an outcome (Likert scores ≥4/5 or selection of an outcome as most meaningful). RESULTS: After 2 rounds, consensus was achieved for importance of 9 outcomes on the Likert scale. "Decrease in migraine frequency" reached 100% agreement (82/82), followed by "increased ability to resume normal activities" (96%, 79/82). When asked to choose the 3 most meaningful outcomes, stakeholders selected "decrease in migraine frequency" (88%, 72/82) followed by "decrease in migraine severity" (80%, 66/82). The 2 measures rated as most feasibly collected were "decrease in emergency department/urgent care visits" (95%, 40/42) and "decrease in migraine frequency" (90%, 38/42). There were statistically significant differences between non-patient and patient stakeholders in selection of "decrease in emergency department/urgent care visits" [20% (12/61) vs 0% (0/21), P = .031]; and employer and patient stakeholders in selection of "decrease in work days missed" [44% (8/18) vs 5% (1/21), P = .006] and "decrease in emergency department/urgent care visits" [22% (4/18) vs 0% (0/21), P = .037] as most meaningful outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The measures "decrease in migraine frequency" followed by "decrease in migraine severity" were identified as top priority migraine outcome measures.

[Specialised headache units, a feasible alternative in Spain]. / Unidades especializadas de cefalea, una alternativa viable en España.

INTRODUCTION: Visits due to headaches are the most frequent cause of demand for neurological treatment in primary care and neurology services. Headache units improve the quality of care, reduce waiting lists, facilitate access to new treatments of proven efficacy and optimise healthcare expenditure. However, these units have not been implemented on a widespread basis in Spain due to the relatively low importance attributed to the condition and also the assumption that such units have a high cost. AIM: To define the structure and minimum requirements of a headache unit with the intention of contributing to their expansion in hospitals in Spain. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We conducted a consensus study among professionals after reviewing the literature on the structure, functions and resources required by a headache unit designed to serve an area with 350,000 inhabitants. RESULTS: Eight publications were taken as a reference for identifying the minimum resources needed for a headache unit. The panel of experts was made up of 12 professionals from different specialties. The main resource required to be able to implement these units is the professional staff (both supervisory and technical), which can mean an additional cost for the first year of around 107,287.19 euros. CONCLUSIONS: If we bear in mind the direct and indirect costs due to losses in labour productivity per patient and compare them with the estimated costs involved in implementing these units and their expected results, everything points to the need for headache units to become generalised in Spain.

TITLE: Unidades especializadas de cefalea, una alternativa viable en España.Introducción. Las consultas por cefalea son el motivo más frecuente de demanda de atención de causa neurológica en la atención primaria y en los servicios de neurología. Las unidades de cefalea mejoran la calidad asistencial, reducen las listas de espera, facilitan el acceso a nuevos tratamientos de eficacia contrastada y optimizan el gasto sanitario. No obstante, la implantación de estas unidades no está extendida en España debido a la relativa importancia atribuida a la patología y a la suposición de que su coste es elevado. Objetivo. Definir la estructura y los requerimientos mínimos de una unidad de cefalea con la intención de contribuir a su extensión en los hospitales de España. Sujetos y métodos. Estudio de consenso entre profesionales tras la revisión de la bibliografía sobre la estructura, las funciones y los recursos de una unidad de cefalea para un área de 350.000 habitantes. Resultados. Se tomaron como referencia ocho publicaciones para la identificación de recursos mínimos necesarios de una unidad de cefalea. El panel de expertos estuvo integrado por 12 profesionales de diferentes especialidades. El principal recurso para la implementación de estas unidades son profesionales (superiores y técnicos), lo que puede suponer un coste adicional para el primer año de alrededor de 107.287,19 euros. Conclusiones. Si consideramos los costes directos e indirectos debidos a las pérdidas por productividad laboral por paciente y los comparamos con los costes estimados de implantación de estas unidades y su expectativa de resultados, todo apunta a que es necesaria la generalización de unidades de cefalea en España.

Employee and Employer Benefits From a Migraine Management Program: Disease Outcomes and Cost Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of a migraine management program offered as a complimentary service by a company within its corporate well-being program. BACKGROUND: Migraine imposes a substantial burden on patients, families, employers, and societies. As migraine primarily affects working-age adults, this has important implications for both employees and employers. Workplace educational and well-being programs positively contribute to employees' productivity, reduce costs related to absenteeism, and improve the quality of life of the employees living with migraine. METHODS: This was a non-interventional cohort study, which followed employees and their family members over time. Participants received 1 telemedicine consultation to determine migraine diagnosis or a high probability of having migraine and 6 sessions of individualized telecoaching from a specialized nurse via a specially developed smartphone application to optimize their migraine management leveraging all appropriate medical and lifestyle options. Participants were evaluated during the program and at 3 months after completion through a series of validated questionnaires including Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS), Patient Activation Measure (PAM), and satisfaction with the services offered. A cost analysis was also performed to determine the economic benefit of the program considering the number of completers, dropouts, their associated program costs, MIDAS data, average salary of a Swiss employee in the pharma sector, and working days per year. RESULTS: Of the 141 participants enrolled in the program, 79 completed 6-month and 42 completed 9-month assessments. The total MIDAS scores (mean, standard deviation [SD]) significantly improved from baseline by 54% at Month 6 (15.0 [13.6] vs 6.9 [8.2]; mean [SD] reduction: 8.1 [12.9], 95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.6-10.6; P < .0001) and by 64% at Month 9 (15.4 [14.7] vs 5.6 [6.0]; mean [SD] reduction: 9.8 [14.0], 95% CI: 6.6-13.0; P < .0001). The PAM scores also significantly improved from baseline by 8% at Month 6 (63.8 [10.9] vs 69.6 [12.8]; mean [SD] increase: 5.8 [12.8], 95% CI: 3.2-8.4; P = .003) and 11% at Month 9 (63.5 [10.7] vs 71.3 [12.2]; mean [SD] increase: 7.8 [11.0], 95% CI: 4.3-11.2; P = .003). At Month 6, common coaching lessons and respective action plans focused on progressive muscle relaxation, sleep, hydration, nutrition, general disease education, and stress management. The exit survey showed that the majority of the participants who completed the program had a meaningful and sustained improvement in their overall health and reported a high level of satisfaction with the program. The cost analysis revealed that on average participants gained 10.8 (95% CI: 9.3-12.3) working days/year that were previously lost due to migraine, resulting in a positive return on investment (ROI) of 490% (95% CI: 410%-570%), indicating a higher magnitude of savings that could be achieved by the implementation of such program. In addition to ROI and work productivity gained, participants also gained on average 13.6 (95% CI: 9.9-17.3) migraine-free days/year for their private and social life. CONCLUSION: The employer-sponsored disease management program provided a better understanding of migraine, promoted methods and approaches to improve management by combining medical and lifestyle options leading to significant improvements in migraine symptoms that sustained beyond the intervention, supporting prolonged effectiveness of such programs. The program also provided a high ROI to the employer, supporting that the systematic inclusion of such programs into corporate well-being initiatives can be of significant benefit not only to the impacted individuals but to the employers as well.

Acupuncture reduced the medical expenditure in migraine patients: Real-world data of a 10-year national cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: According to the data of Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, almost all the countries got increased medical expenditures in these years. Among the diseases, migraine is a condition that affects predominantly young and middle-aged people. It results in great economic losses. So we perform this research to investigate the acupuncture effect of reducing medical expenditure and medical resources use. PERSPECTIVE: Acupuncture is a non-pharmacologic treatment and it became popular in recent years. In Taiwan, about 13% migraine patients visited acupuncture doctor. We hypothesized that the acupuncture had the additional effect than the medical treatment. SETTING: We analysed the economic cost and medical visits in the real word. METHODS: We used national cohort data from Taiwan, retrospectively gathered between 2000 and 2010. We selected newly diagnosed migraine patients who were diagnosed by registered neurologists formally licensed by the Taiwan Neurological Society. We divided these patients into two groups: with and without acupuncture treatment. The main outcome was medical expenditures and visits within 1 year after acupuncture. RESULTS: In migraine patients who received acupuncture treatment, medical expenditures on emergency care and hospitalization were significantly lower than the group without acupuncture treatment. CONCLUSION: According to our real-world data, acupuncture can reduce the medical expenditure in migraine patients within 1 year after diagnosis. For the health policy maker, it is cost effective to encourage combining acupuncture and western medicine to treat migraine patients. For the doctors in routine clinical practice, who may consider to consult acupuncture doctors to deal with the migraine patients together.

Economic consequences of migraine in Sweden and implications for the cost-effectiveness of onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox) for chronic migraine in Sweden and Norway.

BACKGROUND: Migraine is a common and incapacitating condition, with severe impact on the quality of life (QoL) of the afflicted and their families, and negative economic consequences through decreased workforce participation, reduced functional ability and elevated healthcare costs. This study aimed to describe the economic consequences of migraine in Sweden using cost of illness survey data and, based on this data, assess the cost-effectiveness of onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox) for the treatment of chronic migraine in Sweden and Norway. METHODS: A survey study was conducted in Swedish migraine patients, with questions on patient characteristics, headache frequency and severity, effect on daily activities and work, QoL, health resource utilization, and medication use. Resulting costs were estimated as annual averages over subgroups of average monthly headache days. Some results were used to inform a Markov cost-effectiveness chronic migraine model. The model was adapted to Sweden and Norway using local data. The analysis perspective was semi-societal. Results' robustness was tested using one-way, structural, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Results from the cost of illness analysis (n = 454) indicated a clear correlation between decreased QoL and increased costs with increasing monthly headache days. Total annual costs ranged from EUR 6221 in patients with 0-4 headache days per month, to EUR 57,832 in patients with 25-31. Indirect costs made up the majority of costs, ranging from 82% of total costs in the 0-4 headache days group, to 91% in 25-31 headache days. The cost-effectiveness analyses indicated that in Sweden, Botox was associated with 0.223 additional QALYs at an additional cost of EUR 4126 compared to placebo, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of EUR 18,506. In Norway, Botox was associated with 0.216 additional QALYs at an additional cost of EUR 4301 compared to placebo, resulting in an ICER of EUR 19,954. CONCLUSIONS: In people with migraine, an increase in monthly headache days is clearly related to lower QoL and higher costs, indicating considerable potential costs-savings in reducing the number of headache days. The main cost driver for migraine is indirect costs. Botox reduces headache days and is a cost-effective treatment for chronic migraine in Sweden and Norway.

Economic burden and risk factors of migraine disease progression in the US: a retrospective analysis of a commercial payer database.

AIMS: To evaluate the prevalence and risk factors of migraine progression and to assess the incremental burden of migraine progression on healthcare systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adult patients were required to have a migraine diagnosis in IQVIA's US adjudicated claims database between 1 January 2012 and 30 June 2016, continuous enrollment ≥12 months before and after the index date (i.e. the first observed migraine diagnosis), and ≥1 additional migraine diagnosis claim during the 12-month post-index period. A previously-developed algorithm identified patients with prevention-eligible episodic migraine (EM). All-cause healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs were evaluated at baseline, over the follow-up period and pre/post progression from prevention-eligible EM to chronic migraine. Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate risk factors associated with progression. RESULTS, LIMITATIONS, AND CONCLUSIONS: Of the 125,436 patients with prevention-eligible EM that were initially identified, 5,790 (4.6%) were further identified as progressed. Patients who progressed had higher healthcare costs and higher medication use at baseline compared to patients that did not progress. Mean (SD) all-cause total costs per patient per month were $1,790 ($3,788), significantly higher in the post-progression period compared to $1,414 ($2,456) in the pre-progression period in patients who progressed (p < .0001). Younger age, female sex, initial diagnosis by a neurologist, chronic pain, and use of triptans and/or non-specific acute medications were all significant progression risk factors. Results are limited by the use of a heterogeneous population (incident, prevalent, treated, and untreated patients), coding biases, and lack of information on non-prescription drug utilization and plan limits. Limitations aside, there are substantial HCRU and cost burden associated with migraine progression. Younger age, female sex, and the use of specific drug classes are likely to increase migraine disease progression risk.

Effect of Headache-Free Days on Disability, Productivity, Quality of Life, and Costs Among Individuals with Migraine.

BACKGROUND: The functional impairment associated with migraine can cause physical, emotional, and economic ramifications that can affect occupational, academic, social, and family life. Understanding the relationship between headache-free days (HFDs) and the disease burden of migraine may help with decisions regarding treatment and management of migraine. OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship between burden of disease measures and HFDs among individuals with migraine experiencing ≥ 4 headache days in the previous 30 days. METHODS: The 2016 U.S. National Health and Wellness Survey (N = 97,503) was self-administered to a nationally representative sample of adults. Respondents with a migraine diagnosis who reported ≥ 4 headache days a month were included in the analysis. The primary independent variable was the number of HFDs assessed as both a continuous (HFDs in the previous 30 days) and categorical (0-10, 11-20, and 21-26 HFDs) measure. HFDs were used to predict outcomes using separate generalized linear models. Outcomes included effect on functional status and well-being, measured by the 6-item Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) score; number of days of work and/or household activities missed due to migraine; annualized indirect costs due to work productivity loss (assessed via the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire); and annualized direct costs due to health care resource use (health care provider visits, emergency room visits, and hospitalizations). RESULTS: The survey included 372 respondents with diagnosed migraine and ≥ 4 headache days per month. Using HFDs as a continuous variable, each additional HFD was associated with a 0.15-point reduction in HIT-6 scores, a 5% reduction in both number of work days and household activities missed, and a 4% reduction in indirect costs; thus, a 5-day increase in HFDs would lead to a 0.75-point reduction in HIT-6 scores, 25% reduction in days of work or household activities missed, and 20% reduction in indirect costs. Analyzing HFDs as a categorical variable, respondents experiencing 21-26 HFDs had lower HIT-6 total scores than those with 0-10 HFDs (adjusted means: 66.59 vs. 63.91; P = 0.001) or those with 11-20 HFDs (65.66 vs. 63.91, P = 0.015). Respondents experiencing 21-26 HFDs missed fewer work days than those with 0-10 HFDs (4.44 vs. 1.46, P = 0.002) or those with 11-20 HFDs (3.36 vs. 1.46, P = 0.009). Similarly, respondents with 11-20 HFDs (22.99 vs. 9.72, P < 0.001) and those with 21-26 HFDs (22.99 vs. 7.34, P = 0.001) were associated with fewer days of household activities missed due to migraine compared with respondents with 0-10 HFDs. Respondents with 21-26 HFDs per month had significantly lower indirect costs ($16,975 vs. $6,919, P = 0.025) than those with 0-10 HFDs. CONCLUSIONS: A higher number of HFDs is associated with decreased headache-related disability among those with migraine. Interventions that increase the total number of HFDs may reduce the burden and cost associated with migraine. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Teva Pharmaceutical Industries (Petach Tikva, Israel). Cohen is an employee of Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D (USA); Bell was employed by Teva Pharmaceutical Industries at the time of this study and has stock/stock options in Teva Pharmaceutical Industries. Lee is employed by Kantar, which received payment from Teva Pharmaceutical Industries for data analyses performed for this study. Lipton has received research support from the NIH, the Migraine Research Foundation, and the National Headache Foundation. He has reviewed for the NIA and NINDS; holds stock options in eNeura Therapeutics and Biohaven Holdings; and serves as consultant, advisory board member, or has received honoraria from the American Academy of Neurology, Alder, Allergan, American Headache Society, Amgen, Autonomic Technologies, Avanir, Biohaven, Biovision, Boston Scientific, Dr. Reddy's, electroCore, Eli Lilly, eNeura Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Pernix, Pfizer, Supernus, Teva, Trigemina, Vector, and Vedanta. Saikali serves on the advisory board and as speaker for Allergan, Amgen, Promius, Supernus, and Teva Pharmaceuticals. He serves as a speaker for Assertio, Avanir, Cefaly, Egalet, Eli Lilly, Gammacore, and Pernix. This study has been presented as a poster at the American Academy of Neurology 2018 Annual Meeting, April 21-27, 2018, in Los Angeles, CA; Headache Update 2017, July 13-16, 2017, in Lake Buena Vista, FL; and the American Headache Society 2017 Annual Meeting, June 8-11, 2017, in Boston, MA.

Burden of Illness Among People with Migraine and ≥ 4 Monthly Headache Days While Using Acute and/or Preventive Prescription Medications for Migraine.

BACKGROUND: Migraine is a chronic disease that reduces health-related quality of life. Little is known about the burden of migraine in individuals who are potential candidates for preventive treatment with ≥ 4 monthly headache days currently using migraine medications. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the burden of migraine among patients reporting ≥ 4 monthly headache days while taking acute and/or preventive migraine medications. METHODS: In this retrospective, cross-sectional study, data from the 2016 U.S. National Health and Wellness Survey (N = 97,503) compared the burden of migraine among individuals self-reporting a diagnosis of migraine by a health care professional and ≥ 4 monthly headache days while using acute and/or preventive prescription migraine medications to matched nonmigraine controls. Propensity score matching across different variables (e.g., age, gender, and body mass index) was used to identify matched controls from respondents who did not self-report a diagnosis of migraine. Migraine-associated burden was measured by impairment in work productivity and daily activities (Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire), all-cause health care resource utilization (HRU), and all-cause direct and indirect costs. RESULTS: This analysis included 197 treated migraine patients with ≥ 4 monthly headache days and 197 matched nonmigraine controls. Greater proportions of treated migraine patients reported comorbid depression (58.4% vs. 27.9%, P < 0.001) or generalized anxiety disorder (15.2% vs. 8.6%, P = 0.043) and were on long-term disability (13.7% vs. 5.6%, P = 0.003). Absenteeism (11.8% vs. 6.3%, P = 0.030); presenteeism (36.0% vs. 17.5%, P < 0.001); overall work impairment (41.0% vs. 20.9%, P < 0.001); and activity impairment (45.4% vs. 25.4%, P < 0.001) were greater in treated migraine patients versus nonmigraine controls. Treated migraine patients had higher all-cause HRU and higher all-cause direct ($24,499.90 vs. $15,318.91, P = 0.013) and indirect ($14,770.57 vs. $5,764.93, P < 0.001) costs than nonmigraine controls. CONCLUSIONS: Treated migraine patients with ≥ 4 monthly headache days reported significantly reduced work productivity and increased all-cause HRU and cost despite migraine treatment compared with nonmigraine controls. These findings highlight unmet needs in the treatment and management of migraine. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Teva Pharmaceutical Industries (Petach Tikva, Israel). Cohen is an employee of Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D (USA); Bell was an employee of Teva Pharmaceutical Industries at the time of this study and holds stock/stock options in Teva Pharmaceutical Industries. Lee is an employee of Kantar, which received funding from Teva Pharmaceutical Industries for data analyses performed for this study. Buse has served as a paid consultant to Amgen/Novartis, Allergan, Biohaven, Eli Lilly, Promius/Dr. Reddy's, and Teva Pharmaceuticals, but she was not compensated financially for work on this study. Yugrakh has received research support from Teva Pharmaceuticals and Cefaly Technology. Lipton has received research support from the NIH, the Migraine Research Foundation, and the National Headache Foundation; holds stock options in eNeura Therapeutics and Biohaven Holdings; serves as consultant, advisory board member, or has received honoraria from the American Academy of Neurology, Alder, Allergan, the American Headache Society, Amgen, Autonomic Technologies, Avanir, Biohaven, BioVision, Boston Scientific, Dr. Reddy's, electroCore, Eli Lilly, eNeura Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Pernix, Pfizer, Supernus, Teva, Trigemina, Vector, and Vedanta. This study was presented as a poster at the American Academy of Neurology 2018 Annual Meeting, April 21-27, 2018, in Los Angeles, CA; PAINWeek 2018, September 4-8, 2018, in Las Vegas, NV; and the 2017 European Headache Federation (EHF) Congress, December 1-3, 2017, in Rome, Italy.

Impact of migraine on workplace productivity and monetary loss: a study of employees in banking sector in Malaysia.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Productivity and monetary loss due to migraine in the workplace may be substantial. This study aimed to determine the impact of migraine on productivity and monetary lost among employees in the banking sectors, in a multiethnic middle income country. METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey was conducted among employees in two multinational banks in Malaysia between April and July 2019. Screening for migraine was conducted using the self-administered ID-Migraine™ questionnaire. Migraine-related disability (MIDAS) and headache frequency were recorded. Impact of migraine on work productivity and activities were evaluated using the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) questionnaire. RESULTS: Of the 1268 employees who submitted complete responses, 47.2% (n = 598) were screened positive for migraine. Strikingly, the mean percent productivity loss at work (presenteeism) was almost 20-fold higher than the mean percent work time missed due to migraine (absenteeism) (39.1% versus 1.9%). The mean percent productivity loss in regular activity (activity impairment) and overall work productivity loss (work impairment) was 38.4% and 39.9%, respectively. It was also found that the costs related to presenteeism (MYR 5392.6) (US$1296) was 3.5-fold higher than absenteeism (MYR1,548.3) (US$370). Highest monetary loss related to presenteeism was reported in migraineurs with frequency of headache of above 3 days (MYR 25,691.2) (US$6176), whereas highest monetary loss related to absenteeism was reported in migraineurs with MIDAS grade IV (MYR 12,369.1) (US$2973). Only 30% of migraineurs of MIDAS grade IV reported taking prescribed medication. Notably, a vast majority (96%) of migraineurs who had three or lower episodes of migraine per month did not seek treatment. CONCLUSION: The significant impact of migraine on work productivity and regular activity, appears to lead to substantial monetary loss attributed to not only absenteeism, but more importantly to presenteeism. This study also highlights the unmet needs in migraine management among employees in the banking sector.

United States Patients' Perspective of Living With Migraine: Country-Specific Results From the Global "My Migraine Voice" Survey.

BACKGROUND: Migraine is associated with debilitating symptoms that can affect daily functioning. "My Migraine Voice" was a large, cross-sectional, multi-country online survey aimed at understanding disease burden directly from people with migraine. OBJECTIVE: This study reports on the social and economic impacts of migraine, specifically the impact on activities of daily living and the costs of migraine, from the point of view of people with migraine in the United States. METHODS: The online survey was administered to adults with a self-reported diagnosis of migraine who experienced 4 or more monthly migraine days each month for the previous 3 months. Prespecified screening quotas were used so that 90% of respondents reported current or past use of preventive migraine medication, 80% of whom switched treatment (ie, changed their prescribed preventive medication at least once). The remaining 10% were preventive treatment naïve (ie, never used any prescribed preventive medication). Burden of migraine on activities of daily living and caregivers (eg, functional limitations, fear of next migraine attack, sleep problems) and economic burden (eg, out-of-pocket costs, impact on work productivity using the validated work productivity and activity impairment questionnaire) reported by respondents from the United States are presented. Results are stratified by employment status, migraine frequency (chronic vs episodic migraine), and history of preventive treatment. RESULTS: Thousand hundred and one individuals with migraine from the United States responded to the survey. Respondents reported limitations completing daily activities during all migraine phases, including during the premonitory/aura and postdrome phases. Most (761/1101 (69%)) relied on family, friends, or others for help with daily tasks and reported being helped a median of 9 days (25th percentile 5 days, 75th percentile 15 days) within the last 3 months. Respondents with chronic migraine reported being helped for more days (median 10 days, 25th percentile 5 days, 75th percentile 23 days) in the last 3 months. Almost all (962/1101 (87%)) experienced sleep difficulties and 41% (448/1101) (48% (336/697) of those with 2 or more preventive treatment failures) were very or extremely fearful of a next migraine attack. Median (25th percentile, 75th percentile) monthly out-of-pocket costs of $90.00 ($30.00, $144.00) in doctor's fees (n = 504), $124.00 ($60.00, $234.00) in health insurance (n = 450), $40.00 ($20.00, $100.00) for prescriptions (n = 630), and $50.00 ($0.00, $100.00) for complementary therapies (n = 255) were reported. Those with 2 or more preventive treatment failures reported higher monthly out-of-pocket doctor fees (median $99.00 ($30.00, $150.00), n = 388). Among employed respondents (n = 661), migraine resulted in 22% absenteeism, 60% presenteeism, 65% work productivity loss, and 64% activity impairment. CONCLUSIONS: Migraine impacts individuals' activities of daily living, work-life, and financial status, especially individuals with high needs, namely those with 4 or more monthly migraine days and prior treatment failures. People with migraine are impaired during all migraine phases, experience fear of their next migraine attack and sleep difficulties, and pay substantial monthly out-of-pocket costs for migraine. Burden is even greater among those who have had 2 or more preventive treatment failures. Impacts of migraine extend beyond probands to caregivers who help people with migraine with daily tasks, employers who are affected by employee absenteeism, presenteeism, and reduced productivity, and society which is burdened by lost and reduced economic productivity and healthcare costs.