Patients and general practitioners assessment of the main outcomes employed in the acute and preventive treatment of migraine: a cross sectional study.

BACKGROUND: We aim to describe and compare patients and general practitioners' opinions about the different variables related to acute and preventive treatment for migraine. PATIENTS AND METHODS: An observational descriptive study was performed. Patients with episodic migraine and general practitioners, from our healthcare area, were invited to answer a survey about the different variables related to migraine treatment. They were asked for their opinions on the different variables, and to consider the desired efficacy in percentage terms and the desired action times of treatment. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients and fifty-five general practitioners were selected. Effectiveness was considered the most important variable for symptomatic and preventive treatment. Cost was considered the least important variable. Patients desired percentage of efficacy was 84.0% (±16.7%) for symptomatic treatment and 79.9% (±17.1%) for preventive treatment. General practitioners desired percentage of efficacy was 75.0% (±14.0) for symptomatic treatment and 70.4% (±14.3) for preventive treatment. For symptomatic treatment the desired action time for pain cessation was selected as 27.5 min (±13.8) for patients and 24.0 min (±18.3) for GPs. For preventive treatment the desired action time for effect was 7.1 days (±4.5) for patients and 13.9 days (±8.9) for general practitioners. CONCLUSION: The most important endpoints were, for acute: effectiveness, a short action time and a persistent effect. For prophylactic: effectiveness, sustained effect and tolerability. Both patients and general practitioners agreed on the most and least preferred endpoints. Desired percentage of efficacy was above 75% for both symptomatic and preventive treatment; and the desired action time was below 30 min for acute treatment and 2 weeks for preventive treatment.

Time lost due to an attack - a novel patient-reported outcome measure for acute migraine treatments.

OBJECTIVE: We propose a new outcome measure to assess the efficacy of migraine treatments translating the approach of the Global Burden of Disease studies from a societal to an individual level: Instead of calculating "years lived with disability", we suggest estimating "time lost due to an attack". METHODS: Time lost due to an attack is calculated by multiplying the duration and the degree of impaired functioning during an attack. RESULTS: Time lost due to an attack, different from other outcome measures, does not just focus on the short-term analgesic effects of treatments, but rather on the improvement of all migraine symptoms and restoration of functioning, also considering therapy-related impairment. Importantly, time lost due to an attack measures the entire time patients are not functioning normally, from onset to complete resolution. CONCLUSIONS: Time lost due to an attack represents a new paradigm to assess migraine burden in single patients for a patient-centered evaluation of both acute and prophylactic treatments.