Epidemiology of clinically significant forms of alpha- and beta-thalassemia: A global map of evidence and gaps.

This systematic literature review assessed the global prevalence and birth prevalence of clinically significant forms of alpha- and beta-thalassemia. Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library were searched for observational studies published January 1, 2000, to September 21, 2021. Of 2093 unique records identified, 69 studies reported across 70 publications met eligibility criteria, including 6 records identified from bibliography searches. Thalassemia prevalence estimates varied across countries and even within countries. Across 23 population-based studies reporting clinically significant alpha-thalassemia (e.g., hemoglobin H disease and hemoglobin Bart's hydrops fetalis) and/or beta-thalassemia (beta-thalassemia intermedia, major, and/or hemoglobin E/beta-thalassemia), prevalence estimates per 100 000 people ranged from 0.2 in Spain (over 2014-2017) to 27.2 in Greece (2010-2015) for combined beta- plus alpha-thalassemia; from 0.03 in Spain (2014-2017) to 4.5 in Malaysia (2007-2018) for alpha-thalassemia; and from 0.2 in Spain (2014-2017) to 35.7 to 49.6 in Iraq (2003-2018) for beta-thalassemia. Overall, the estimated prevalence of thalassemia followed the predicted pattern of being higher in the Middle East, Asia, and Mediterranean than in Europe or North America. However, population-based prevalence estimates were not found for many countries, and there was heterogeneity in case definitions, diagnostic methodology, type of thalassemia reported, and details on transfusion requirements. Limited population-based birth prevalence data were found. Twenty-seven studies reported thalassemia prevalence from non-population-based samples. Results from such studies likely do not have countrywide generalizability as they tended to be from highly specific groups. To fully understand the global prevalence of thalassemia, up-to-date, population-based epidemiological data are needed for many countries.

Lasmiditan efficacy in the acute treatment of migraine was independent of prior response to triptans: Findings from the CENTURION study.

BACKGROUND: A significant proportion of triptan users exhibit an insufficient response or inadequate tolerability to a triptan, and some may develop a contraindication. Lasmiditan, a selective 5-HT1F receptor agonist, may be an option for these individuals. We assessed lasmiditan efficacy in a subgroup of patients in CENTURION (Phase 3 migraine consistency study) who exhibited an insufficient response to triptans, including a subgroup with insufficient response due to efficacy only. METHODS: Patients were randomized to lasmiditan 200 mg for four attacks, lasmiditan 100 mg for four attacks, or placebo for three and lasmiditan 50 mg for one attack. Triptan insufficient responders were pre-defined as patients with insufficient efficacy or tolerability, or who developed a contraindication. RESULTS: In triptan insufficient responders, lasmiditan was superior to placebo (p < 0.05) for pain freedom beginning at 1 h (both doses); pain relief beginning at 0.5 (200 mg) or 1 h (100 mg); migraine-related disability freedom, much/very much better on the Patient Global Impression of Change, and most bothersome symptom freedom at 2 h; sustained pain freedom; and need for rescue medication. Lasmiditan showed benefit for consistency of effect across attacks for 2-h pain freedom and pain relief. Findings were similar in triptan responders and triptan naïve patients and when the triptan insufficient response definition was based on efficacy only. CONCLUSIONS: Lasmiditan was efficacious across multiple clinically relevant endpoints in the acute treatment of migraine independent of prior response to triptans.Trial Registration: CENTURION (NCT03670810); SAMURAI (NCT02439320); SPARTAN (NCT02605174).

Lasmiditan for the acute treatment of migraine: Subgroup analyses by prior response to triptans.

BACKGROUND: Lasmiditan demonstrated superiority to placebo in the acute treatment of migraine in adults with moderate/severe migraine disability in two similarly designed Phase 3 trials, SAMURAI and SPARTAN. Post-hoc integrated analyses evaluated the efficacy of lasmiditan in patients who reported a good or insufficient response to triptans and in those who were triptan naïve. METHODS: Subgroups of patients reporting an overall response of "good" or "poor/none" to the most recent use of a triptan at baseline (defined as good or insufficient responders, respectively) and a triptan-naïve subpopulation were derived from combined study participants randomized to receive lasmiditan 50 mg (SPARTAN only), 100 mg or 200 mg, or placebo, as the first dose. Outcomes including headache pain-freedom, most bothersome symptom-freedom, and headache pain relief 2 hours post-first dose of lasmiditan were compared with placebo. Treatment-by-subgroup analyses additionally investigated whether therapeutic benefit varied according to prior triptan response (good or insufficient). RESULTS: Regardless of triptan response, lasmiditan showed higher efficacy than placebo (most comparisons were statistically significant). Treatment-by-subgroup analyses found that the benefit over placebo of lasmiditan did not vary significantly between patients with a good response and those with an insufficient response to triptans. Lasmiditan also showed higher efficacy than placebo in triptan-naïve patients. CONCLUSIONS: Lasmiditan demonstrated comparable efficacy in patients who reported a good or insufficient response to prior triptan use. Lasmiditan also showed efficacy in those who were triptan naïve. Lasmiditan may be a useful therapeutic option for patients with migraine. TRIAL REGISTRATION: SAMURAI (NCT02439320); SPARTAN (NCT02605174).

A Qualitative Study to Assess the Content Validity of the 24-Hour Migraine Quality of Life Questionnaire in Patients with Migraine.

OBJECTIVE: A concept elicitation, cognitive debriefing, and usability study was undertaken to: (1) explore migraine symptoms and day-to-day impacts; (2) determine the comprehensiveness and comprehensibility of the previously developed 24-Hour Migraine Quality of Life Questionnaire electronic patient-reported outcome (24-Hr MQoLQ ePRO) items, and the appropriateness and understanding of the recall period, response options, and instructions; and (3) assess the usability on an electronic hand-held device. METHODS: Eleven United States English-speaking people with episodic migraine were recruited to participate in one-on-one interviews, which followed methods appropriate for concept elicitation, cognitive debriefing, and usability testing. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed following the constant comparative method. RESULTS: Participants had a mean age of 42 years, and 8 were female. Through spontaneous mention or probing, all concepts of the 24-Hr MQoLQ ePRO were endorsed by a majority of the participants. Cognitive interviewing confirmed the 24-Hr MQoLQ ePRO instructions were clear, meaningful, and important to assess as symptoms and day-to-day impacts experienced as a result of migraine. Overall impressions of the ePRO device were overwhelmingly favorable, and the ePRO device was preferred to paper and pencil by all participants. Participant responses regarding the level of headache pain that would be acceptable in order to continue to go about daily activities ranged from 3 to 6, on a scale of 0 to 10, with 0 being "no headache" and 10 being "the worst headache." CONCLUSIONS: The 24-Hr MQoLQ ePRO is content-valid and appropriate for inclusion in future acute treatment for migraine studies designed to measure the symptoms and health-related quality of life of migraine.

A Real-World Analysis of Patient Characteristics, Treatment Patterns, and Level of Impairment in Patients With Migraine Who are Insufficient Responders vs Responders to Acute Treatment.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine if patients with migraine who responded sufficiently to acute treatment were significantly different from those who did not in terms of patient characteristics, treatment patterns, and patient level of impairment, and to identify characteristics associated with insufficient response. BACKGROUND: Migraine is highly prevalent and impacts functional ability substantially. Current treatment approaches are not sufficiently meeting the needs of patients, and inadequate response to acute treatment is reported by at least 56% of patients with migraine in the United States. METHODS: Data were obtained from the 2014 Adelphi Migraine Disease-Specific Program, a cross-sectional survey. Using logistic regression, we assessed the association between patient factors and insufficient response. Responders were defined as patients with migraine who achieved pain freedom within 2 hours of acute treatment in ≥4 of 5 attacks, while insufficient responders achieved it in ≤3 of 5 attacks. RESULTS: Of 583 patients included, insufficient responders to acute treatment constituted 34.3% (200/583) of the study population. A statistically significantly larger proportion of insufficient responders vs responders had ≥4 migraine headache days/month (46.3% [88/190] vs 31% [114/368]), had ever been prescribed ≥3 unique preventive treatment regimens (11.7% [21/179] vs 6.3% [22/347]), and had chronic migraine, medication-overuse headaches, and comorbid depression (all P values ≤.05). Patient level of impairment was statistically significantly greater among insufficient responders vs responders. Factors associated with insufficient response after adjusting for covariates included Migraine Disability Assessment total score (odds ratio [OR] = 1.04, 95% CI [1.02, 1.05]), time of administration of acute treatment (OR = 1.83, 95% CI [1.15, 2.92]), depression (OR = 1.98, 95% CI [1.21, 3.23]), sensitivity to light not listed as current most troublesome symptom (OR = 2.30, 95% CI [1.21, 4.37]), and change in the average headache days per month before being prescribed an acute treatment vs now (OR = 1.75, 95% CI [1.05, 2.90]). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, and health-related quality of life measures are statistically significantly different between insufficient responders and responders to acute treatment in patients with migraine.

The Role of Diet and Nutrition in Migraine Triggers and Treatment: A Systematic Literature Review.

BACKGROUND: Migraine is a disabling primary headache disorder often associated with triggers. Diet-related triggers are a common cause of migraine and certain diets have been reported to decrease the frequency of migraine attacks if dietary triggers or patterns are adjusted. OBJECTIVE: The systematic literature review was conducted to qualitatively summarize evidence from the published literature regarding the role of diet patterns, diet-related triggers, and diet interventions in people with migraine. METHODS: A literature search was carried out on diet patterns, diet-related triggers, and diet interventions used to treat and/or prevent migraine attacks, using an a priori protocol. MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched to identify studies assessing the effect of diet, food, and nutrition in people with migraine aged ≥18 years. Only primary literature sources (randomized controlled trials or observational studies) were included and searches were conducted from January 2000 to March 2019. The NICE checklist was used to assess the quality of the included studies of randomized controlled trials and the Downs and Black checklist was used for the assessment of observational studies. RESULTS: A total of 43 studies were included in this review, of which 11 assessed diet patterns, 12 assessed diet interventions, and 20 assessed diet-related triggers. The overall quality of evidence was low, as most of the (68%) studies assessing diet patterns and diet-related triggers were cross-sectional studies or patient surveys. The studies regarding diet interventions assessed a variety of diets, such as ketogenic diet, elimination diets, and low-fat diets. Alcohol and caffeine uses were the most common diet patterns and diet-related triggers associated with increased frequency of migraine attacks. Most of the diet interventions, such as low-fat and elimination diets, were related to a decrease in the frequency of migraine attacks. CONCLUSIONS: There is limited high-quality randomized controlled trial data on diet patterns or diet-related triggers. A few small randomized controlled trials have assessed diet interventions in preventing migraine attacks without strong results. Although many patients already reported avoiding personal diet-related triggers in their migraine management, high-quality research is needed to confirm the effect of diet in people with migraine.

A global real-world assessment of the impact on health-related quality of life and work productivity of migraine in patients with insufficient versus good response to triptan medication.

BACKGROUND: Migraine is a chronic, disabling neurological disease characterized by moderate-to-severe headache pain with other symptoms, including nausea, vomiting, and photophobia. Triptans, while generally effective, are insufficiently efficacious in 30-40% of patients and poorly tolerated by or contraindicated in others. We assessed the impact of insufficient response to triptans on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and work productivity in patients currently receiving any prescribed triptan formulation as their only acute migraine medication. METHODS: Data were from the 2017 Adelphi Migraine Disease Specific Programme, a cross-sectional survey of primary care physicians, neurologists, and headache specialists and their consulting patients with migraine in the USA, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and UK. Triptan insufficient responders (TIRs) achieved freedom from headache pain within 2 h of acute treatment in ≤3/5 migraine attacks; triptan responders (TRs) achieved pain freedom within 2 h in ≥4/5 attacks. Multivariable general linear model examined differences between TIRs and TRs in HRQoL and work productivity. Logistic regression identified factors associated with insufficient response to triptans. RESULTS: The study included 1413 triptan-treated patients (TIRs: n = 483, 34.2%; TRs: n = 930, 65.8%). TIRs were more likely to be female (76% vs. 70% for TIRs vs TRs, respectively; p = 0.011), older (mean age 42.6 vs. 40.5 years; p = 0.003), and had more headache days/month (7.0 vs. 4.4; p < 0.001). TIRs had significantly more disability, with higher Migraine Disability Scores (MIDAS; 13.2 vs. 7.7; p < 0.001), lower Migraine-specific Quality of Life scores, indicating greater impact (Role Function Restrictive: 62.4 vs. 74.5; Role Function Preventive: 70.0 vs. 82.2; Emotional Function: 67.7 vs. 82.1; all p < 0.001), and lower EQ5D utility scores (0.84 vs. 0.91; p = 0.001). Work productivity and activity were impaired (absenteeism, 8.6% vs. 5.1% for TIRs vs. TRs; presenteeism, 34.3% vs. 21.0%; work impairment, 37.1% vs. 23.3%; overall activity impairment, 39.8% vs. 25.3%; all p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: HRQoL and work productivity were significantly impacted in TIRs versus TRs in this real-world analysis of patients with migraine acutely treated with triptans, highlighting the need for more effective treatments for patients with an insufficient triptan response. Further research is needed to establish causal relationships between insufficient response and these outcomes.

Trajectory of migraine-related disability following long-term treatment with lasmiditan: results of the GLADIATOR study.

BACKGROUND: Migraine is recognized as the second leading cause of disability globally. Lasmiditan is a novel, selective serotonin 5-HT1F receptor agonist developed for acute treatment of migraine. Here we analyzed effects of lasmiditan on migraine disability assessed with the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) scale for interim data from a long-term safety study. METHODS: Completers of two single-attack parent studies were offered participation in the 1 year GLADIATOR study, that randomized participants to treatment with lasmiditan 100 mg or 200 mg taken as needed for migraine attacks of at least moderate severity. Changes in MIDAS were modeled using a mixed model repeated measures analysis. RESULTS: The sample included 1978 patients who received ≥1 lasmiditan dose and were followed for a median of 288 days. Baseline mean MIDAS scores for the lasmiditan 100-mg and 200-mg groups were 29.4 and 28.9, respectively, indicating severe migraine-related disability. Relative to baseline, MIDAS total scores were significantly lower at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months for both dose groups. At 12 months, changes in MIDAS scores were - 12.5 and - 12.2 for lasmiditan 100 mg and 200 mg, respectively, with 49% and 53% of patients, respectively, achieving at least a 50% decrease in MIDAS total score. Statistically significant improvements were also seen for work and/or school absenteeism and presenteeism, monthly headache days, and mean headache pain intensity at all time points up to 1 year. Findings for patients who completed all visits versus those dropping out early were similar. Responses were generally similar for the lasmiditan 100 mg or 200 mg doses, between subgroups defined based on the number of baseline monthly migraine attacks (≤5 vs. >5), and also between subgroups defined by pain-free response (yes/no) during initial attacks. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term treatment with lasmiditan was associated with significant reductions in migraine-related disability, including both work or school absenteeism and presenteeism. The similarity of responses in completers and those who dropped out suggests that selective attrition does not account for the improvements. Benefits were significant at 3 months and maintained through 12 months. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.govNCT02565186; first posted October 1, 2015.

Onset of Efficacy Following Oral Treatment With Lasmiditan for the Acute Treatment of Migraine: Integrated Results From 2 Randomized Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Phase 3 Clinical Studies.

OBJECTIVE: To expand on available information on the efficacy of oral lasmiditan for the acute treatment of migraine with particular focus on the timing of the effect and on its impact on migraine-associated symptoms. BACKGROUND: Lasmiditan is a novel selective 5-hydroxytryptamine 1F receptor agonist that lacks vasoconstrictive activity. In 2 phase 3 studies, SAMURAI and SPARTAN, lasmiditan met primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints at 2 hours following initial dose. METHODS: Integrated analyses were completed from 2 phase 3 clinical trials, SPARTAN and SAMURAI. Baseline data and data collected every 30 minutes up to 2 hours after taking lasmiditan (50, 100, or 200 mg) or placebo were analyzed to determine the onset of efficacy. A total of 5236 patients were randomized to be treated with placebo (N = 1493), lasmiditan 50 mg (N = 750), lasmiditan 100 mg (N = 1498), or lasmiditan 200 mg (N = 1495). Data were analyzed to determine the onset of improvement for the following efficacy measures: pain freedom, most bothersome symptom freedom, pain relief, freedom from associated individual symptoms (photophobia, phonophobia, or nausea), total migraine freedom (defined as pain freedom and freedom from associated symptoms), and freedom from migraine-related functional disability. Time to meaningful headache relief and time to first become pain free were also analyzed. RESULTS: Significantly higher rates of pain freedom (100 mg, 10.0%, P = .012; 200 mg, 15.5%, P < .001; Placebo, 7.0%) and total migraine freedom (100 mg, 8.9%, P = .017; 200 mg, 12.4%, P < .001; Placebo, 6.1%) were achieved starting at 60 minutes in 100- and 200-mg lasmiditan-treated groups compared with placebo group. Rates of freedom from most bothersome symptom (100 mg, 11.1%, P = .015; 200 mg, 13.0%, P < .001; Placebo, 7.9%), and pain relief (100 mg, 17.5%, P = .007; 200 mg, 19.1%, P < .001; Placebo, 13.4%) were significantly higher starting as early as 30 minutes in lasmiditan 100- and 200-mg lasmiditan-treated groups. A significantly higher percentage of patients in the 200-mg lasmiditan-treated group achieved freedom from photophobia (13.7%, P = .005; Placebo, 9.2%) and phonophobia (17.4%, P = .042; Placebo, 13.4%) starting at 30 minutes. A significantly greater proportion of patients in the 200-mg lasmiditan-treated group achieved freedom from migraine-related functional disability starting at 60 minutes (16.4%, P < .001; Placebo, 11.1%). All efficacy measures, except for freedom from nausea, were statistically significant after lasmiditan treatment (50, 100, or 200 mg) compared with placebo at 90 and 120 minutes. Finally, patients taking lasmiditan had a higher likelihood of achieving meaningful headache relief and becoming headache pain free within 24 hours compared with those taking placebo (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with lasmiditan for a migraine attack reported an earlier onset of efficacy compared with those treated with placebo. Some of the efficacy measures such as pain relief demonstrated improvement as early as the first assessment at 30 minutes after 100- or 200-mg lasmiditan treatment.

Characterization of Dizziness After Lasmiditan Usage: Findings From the SAMURAI and SPARTAN Acute Migraine Treatment Randomized Trials.

TRIAL DESIGN: SAMURAI and SPARTAN were double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 3 studies conducted in the United States, as well as the United Kingdom and Germany (SPARTAN only). Individuals with migraine were randomized to receive oral lasmiditan 50 mg (SPARTAN only), 100 mg, 200 mg, or placebo within 4 hours of onset of a migraine attack. The aim of this analysis was to characterize dizziness reported with lasmiditan treatment. METHODS: Data from SAMURAI and SPARTAN were pooled for the current post hoc analyses. Onset time and duration of dizziness were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Subgroup analyses based on presence/absence of dizziness were performed for the endpoints of interference with daily activity, patient global impression of change (PGIC), pain at 2 hours, and most bothersome symptom (MBS) at 2 hours based on adverse events occurring within 2 hours of taking study drug. RESULTS: Dizziness incidence was as follows: Placebo (N = 1262), 2.9% (0.1% severe); lasmiditan 50 mg (N = 654), 8.6% (0.3% severe); lasmiditan 100 mg (N = 1265), 14.9% (0.7% severe); and lasmiditan 200 mg (N = 1258), 16.8% (1.4% severe). Among participants who received lasmiditan as their first dose, risk factors for dizziness were higher lasmiditan dosage, being non-Hispanic/Latino, mild or moderate severity of migraine attack, and lower body mass index. The median time to onset of dizziness was generally 30-40 minutes, and the median duration was 1.5-2 hours. The presence of dizziness did not appear to have a negative influence on lasmiditan's effect on daily activity, PGIC, freedom from pain, or MBS. Overall, 21 participants experienced vertigo: Lasmiditan 50 mg, n = 2 (0.3%); 100 mg, n = 11 (0.9%); 200 mg, n = 7 (0.6%); and placebo, n = 1 (<0.1%). CONCLUSION: The incidence of dizziness with lasmiditan increased with dose. Dizziness was generally mild or moderate in severity and of quick onset and short duration. The presence of dizziness did not influence drug efficacy.

Real-world treatment patterns and patient-reported outcomes in episodic and chronic migraine in Japan: analysis of data from the Adelphi migraine disease specific programme.

BACKGROUND: In Japan, detailed information on the characteristics, disease burden, and treatment patterns of people living with migraine is limited. The aim of this study was to compare clinical characteristics, disease burden, and treatment patterns in people with episodic migraine (EM) or chronic migraine (CM) using real-world data from clinical practice in Japan. METHODS: This was an analysis of data collected in 2014 by the Adelphi Migraine Disease Specific Programme, a cross-sectional survey of physicians and their consulting adult patients in Japan, using physician and patient questionnaires. We report patient demographics, prescribed treatment, work productivity, and quality-of-life data for people with CM (≥15 headache days/month) or EM (not fulfilling CM criteria). In descriptive analyses, continuous and categorical measures were assessed using t-tests and Chi-squared tests, respectively. RESULTS: Physicians provided data for 977 patients (mean age 44.5 years; 77.2% female; 94.5% with EM, 5.5% with CM). A total of 634/977 (64.9%) invited patients (600 with EM; 34 with CM) also provided data. Acute therapy was currently being prescribed in 93.7% and 100% of patients with EM and CM, respectively (p = 0.069); corresponding percentages for current preventive therapy prescriptions were 40.5% and 68.5% (p < 0.001). According to physicians who provided data, preventive therapy was used at least once by significantly fewer patients with EM than with CM (42.3% vs. 68.5%, respectively; p < 0.001). Among patients who provided physicians with information on issues with their current therapy (acute therapy: n = 668 with EM, n = 38 with CM; preventive therapy: n = 295 with EM, n = 21 with CM), lack of efficacy was the most frequently identified problem (acute therapy: EM 35.3%, CM 39.5% [p = 0.833]; preventive therapy: EM 35.3%, CM 52.4% [p = 0.131]). Moderate-to-severe headache-related disability (Migraine Disability Assessment total score ≥ 11) was reported by significantly fewer patients with EM than with CM (21.0% vs. 60.0%, respectively; p < 0.001) among patients who provided data. CONCLUSIONS: Preventive treatment patterns in people with EM versus CM differ in Japan, with both types of migraine posing notable disease burdens. Our findings demonstrate that more effective migraine therapies are required to reduce the burden of the disease.

Systematic review and evidence gap assessment of the clinical, quality of life, and economic burden of alpha-thalassemia.

A recent evidence gaps assessment of the clinical, health-related quality of life, and economic burden associated with α-thalassemia is lacking. We conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) following the methodological and reporting requirements of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews, using available literature over the past decade. This SLR identified a considerable evidence gap with regard to understanding the current burden of α-thalassemia as evident from paucity of studies published in the past 10 years. The limited data available still indicate that patients with α-thalassemia experience substantial morbidity and quality of life/economic burden that is generally comparable to patients with ß-thalassemia.

Evaluation of Patients with Insufficient Efficacy and/or Tolerability to Triptans for the Acute Treatment of Migraine: A Systematic Literature Review.

INTRODUCTION: Use of triptans for acute treatment of migraine is associated with insufficient efficacy and/or tolerability in approximately 30-40% of people. We conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) to synthesize definitions, terminology, subsequent treatment outcomes, and characteristics associated with this subpopulation. METHODS: A comprehensive SLR was conducted to identify studies, published from Jan 1995 to May 2019, which focused on insufficient efficacy and/or tolerability to triptans. RESULTS: Thirty-five publications were identified, of which 22 described randomized controlled trials and open-label studies, and 13 described observational studies. Across studies, multiple objectives and a high amount of variability in methodologies and outcomes were noted. The most commonly applied measures of efficacy were headache pain freedom and pain relief at 2 h. Ten studies assessed efficacy of switching or optimizing treatment in patients with historical insufficient efficacy or tolerability to previous triptan treatment and demonstrated varying levels of success. Factors associated with increased risk of triptan insufficient efficacy included severe baseline headache severity, photophobia, phonophobia, nausea, and depression. CONCLUSIONS: Irrespective of the methodology or definition used to identify people with insufficient efficacy and/or tolerability to triptans, study results support the assertion that a high unmet need remains for effective acute treatment of migraine.

Examining the Effect of Medication Adherence on Risk of Subsequent Fracture Among Women with a Fragility Fracture in the U.S. Medicare Population.

BACKGROUND: In the United States, osteoporosis affects approximately 10 million people, of whom 80% are women, and it contributes a significant clinical burden to the community. Poor adherence to osteoporosis medications adds to the overall burden of illness. OBJECTIVE: To examine the association of osteoporosis medication adherence and the risk of a subsequent fracture among Medicare-enrolled women with a previous fragility fracture. METHODS: This study was a retrospective observational analysis of U.S. administrative claims data among female Medicare beneficiaries who had a nontrauma closed fragility fracture between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2011. Patients were required to have continuous medical and pharmacy enrollment 12 months pre- and postfracture date. In addition, patients were required to have an osteoporosis medication prescription for a bisphosphonate (alendronate, risedronate, pamidronate, etidronate, zoledronate, and tiludronate), calcitonin, denosumab, raloxifene, or teriparatide during the follow-up period. Adherence was calculated using cumulative medication possession ratio (MPR) from the treatment initiation date in 30-day increments. MPR was stratified into high adherence (MPR ≥ 80%), moderate adherence (50% ≤ MPR > 80%), and low adherence (MPR < 50%). Outcomes included first subsequent fracture after treatment initiation; patients were censored at treatment discontinuation, or end of the 12-month period posttreatment initiation. Covariates included demographics, comorbidities, osteoporosis medications, medications associated with falls, and health care utilization. Cox regression was used to model subsequent fractures with time-dependent cumulative MPR. RESULTS: Of the 1,292,248 Medicare enrollees who had a fracture in 2011, a total of 103,852 (8.0%) women aged ≥ 65 years with a fragility fracture were identified. Overall, 27,736 (26.7%) patients were treated with osteoporosis medication within 12 months of the fragility fracture (mean time to treatment initiation was 85.0 ± 84.6 days). Over half of the patients were highly adherent (MPR ≥ 80%) to osteoporosis medications during the follow-up (n = 14,112; 50.9%). Almost a third of the patients had low adherence (MPR < 50%; n = 9,022, 32.5%), followed by patients with moderate adherence (50% ≤ MPR > 80%; n = 4,602, 16.6%). After adjusting for demographics and clinical characteristics, patients with low and moderate adherence to osteoporosis medications were 33% (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.33; 95% CI = 1.17-1.50, P < 0.001) and 19% (HR = 1.19; 95% CI = 1.02-1.38, P = 0.026) more likely to have a subsequent fracture, respectively, compared with patients with high adherence. Low adherence patients had a 32% and 34% increased risk for a hip/pelvis/femur fracture (HR = 1.32; 95% CI = 1.09-1.59, P = 0.005) and a clinical vertebral fracture (HR = 1.34; 95% CI = 1.09-1.63, P = 0.005), respectively, compared with high adherence patients. CONCLUSIONS: Medicare-enrolled women with low and moderate adherence to osteoporosis medications had a higher risk of a subsequent fracture compared with high adherence patients. These results highlight the importance of improving osteoporosis medication adherence among women enrolled in Medicare. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Eli Lilly. Xie, Keshishian, and Baser are employees of STATinMED Research, a paid consultant to Eli Lilly in connection with the study design, data analysis, and development of the manuscript for this study. Boytsov, Burge, Lombard, and Zhang are employees and stock owners of Eli Lilly. At the time of research, Krohn was an employee of Eli Lilly. Study concept and design were contributed by Burge and Lombard, along with the other authors. Xie, Baser, and Keshishian took the lead in data collection, assisted by the other authors. Data interpretation was performed by Krohn and Zhang, with assistance from the other authors. The manuscript was written by Keshishian and Boytsov, along with the other authors, and revised by Boytsov, Keshishian, and Burge, along with the other authors.

Supported decision making: a review of the international literature.

Supported decision making (SDM) refers to the process of supporting people, whose decision making ability may be impaired, to make decisions and so promote autonomy and prevent the need for substitute decision making. There have been developments in SDM but mainly in the areas of intellectual disabilities and end-of-life care rather than in mental health. The main aim of this review was to provide an overview of the available evidence relevant to SDM and so facilitate discussion of how this aspect of law, policy and practice may be further developed in mental health services. The method used for this review was a Rapid Evidence Assessment which involved: developing appropriate search strategies; searching relevant databases and grey literature; then assessing, including and reviewing relevant studies. Included studies were grouped into four main themes: studies reporting stakeholders' views on SDM; studies identifying barriers to the implementation of SDM; studies highlighting ways to improve implementation; and studies on the impact of SDM. The available evidence on implementation and impact, identified by this review, is limited but there are important rights-based, effectiveness and pragmatic arguments for further developing and researching SDM for people with mental health problems.