Headache/migraine-related stigma, quality of life, disability, and most bothersome symptom in adults with current versus previous high-frequency headache/migraine and medication overuse: results of the Migraine Report Card survey.

BACKGROUND: High-frequency headache/migraine (HFM) and overuse of acute medication (medication overuse [MO]) are associated with increased disability and impact. Experiencing both HFM and MO can potentially compound impacts, including stigma; however, evidence of this is limited. The objective of this report was to evaluate self-reported stigma, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), disability, and migraine symptomology in US adults with HFM + MO from the Harris Poll Migraine Report Card survey. METHODS: US adults (≥ 18 yrs., no upper age limit) who screened positive for migraine per the ID Migraine™ screener completed an online survey. Participants were classified into "current HFM + MO" (≥ 8 days/month with headache/migraine and ≥ 10 days/month of acute medication use over last few months) or "previous HFM + MO" (previously experienced HFM + MO, headaches now occur ≤ 7 days/month with ≤ 9 days/month of acute medication use). Stigma, HRQoL, disability, and most bothersome symptom (MBS) were captured. The validated 8-item Stigma Scale for Chronic Illnesses (SSCI-8) assessed internal and external stigma (scores ≥ 60 are clinically significant). Raw data were weighted to the US adult population. Statistically significant differences were determined by a standard t-test of column proportions and means at the 90% (p < 0.1) and 95% (p < 0.05) confidence levels. RESULTS: Participants (N = 550) were categorized as having current (n = 440; mean age 41.1 years; 54% female; 57% White, not Hispanic; 24% Hispanic; 11% Black, not Hispanic) or previous (n = 110; mean age 47.2 years; 49% female; 75% White, not Hispanic; 13% Hispanic; 4% Black, not Hispanic) HFM + MO. Compared to those with previous HFM + MO (21%), adults with current HFM + MO were more likely to experience clinically significant levels of stigma (47%). Men with current HFM + MO (52% compared to men with previous HFM + MO [25%] and women with current [41%] or previous [18%] HFM + MO), non-Hispanic Black (51% compared to White, not Hispanic [45%] and Hispanic [48%] current HFM + MO groups and White, not Hispanic previous HFM + MO [12%]), current HFM + MO aged 18-49 years (50% compared to those with current HFM + MO aged ≥ 50 years [33%] and those with previous HFM + MO aged 18-49 [34%] and ≥ 50 years [4%]), and employed respondents (53% current and 29% previous compared to those not employed [32% current and 12% previous]) reported higher rates of clinically significant stigma. Those with current HFM + MO were more likely to have worse HRQoL and disability due to headache/migraine. Respondents aged ≥ 50 years with current HFM + MO were more likely than respondents aged 18-49 years with current HFM + MO to indicate that their overall quality of life (66% vs. 52%) and their ability to participate in hobbies/activities they enjoy were negatively impacted by headache/migraine (61% vs. 49%). Pain-related symptoms were identified as the MBS. CONCLUSIONS: Together these data suggest that current and previous HFM + MO can be associated with undesirable outcomes, including stigma and reduced HRQoL, which were greatest among people with current HFM + MO, but still considerable for people with previous HFM + MO.

Association between awareness and knowledge of medication-overuse headache with medication-taking behavior among adults with migraine.

Frequent use of pain relief medications among patients with migraine can result in disease worsening and medication-overuse headache (MOH), a painful and debilitating condition. We sought to conduct a cross-sectional survey among adult patients diagnosed with migraine to determine: 1) their awareness of MOH, and 2) their knowledge of the condition and its prevention, and 3) the association of these factors with actual use of pain relief medications. We recruited and interviewed 200 English-speaking adults with migraine who had a clinic visit with a neurologist or primary care provider within the past month. Patients were identified via an electronic health record query. Almost 40% of participants had never heard of the term 'medication-overuse headache.' In bivariate analyses, participants who were Black or Hispanic and those with limited health literacy were less likely to have heard of MOH. Participants scored an average of 2.1 (range: 0-3) on a MOH knowledge measure; older participants, those with limited health literacy, lower education, and little or no migraine-related disability demonstrated less knowledge. Almost a third (31.5%) of patients reported overusing pain relief medication and were at risk for MOH. Overuse was not significantly associated with MOH awareness, knowledge, or sociodemographic factors, but was related to greater migraine-related disability. Our findings suggest that patient awareness and knowledge of MOH is suboptimal, particularly among older adults, racial and ethnic minority groups, and those with limited health literacy. Interventions are needed to prevent MOH and better inform patients about risks associated with frequent use of pain relief medications.

Delayed opportunities for patient-provider communication about medication overuse headache: Mixed methods perspectives from patients and neurologists.

Objectives: Medication overuse headache (MOH) is a common, debilitating condition occurring when migraine patients overuse pain relief medications. We conducted a convergent mixed methods study examining patient-provider communication on MOH. Methods: Migraine patients were identified from one academic health center via electronic health records. Research staff recruited patients and administered a remote survey on MOH awareness, knowledge, and communication; descriptive and bivariate analyses were conducted. Neurologists from the same health center were invited to participate in qualitative interviews; analysis drew from the Rapid Identification of Themes from Audio Recordings procedures. A side-by-side comparison of results followed. Results: Participants included 200 patients and 13 neurologists. More than one third of patients (39.5 %) had never heard of 'medication overuse headache.' Among those who had, 38.4 % learned about MOH ≥ 5 years after their migraine diagnosis. Neurologists similarly reported limited patient awareness of MOH and suggested communication was provider-initiated, reactive to patient-reported symptoms and behaviors. Participants agreed MOH was described as a 'consequence' of frequent medication taking, though specific terminology varied with neurologists suggesting they choose terms they perceive to be easier to understand and less stigmatizing to patients. Neurologists felt they lacked effective patient education resources. Conclusions: Findings reveal delayed opportunities to inform patients about MOH. Standardized education supporting early preventive communication is needed, perhaps in primary care where many patients seek initial care for migraine symptoms.

Structural equation modeling for identifying the drivers of health-related quality of life improvement experienced by patients with migraine receiving eptinezumab.

BACKGROUND: As new migraine therapies emerge, it is crucial for measures to capture the complexities of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) improvement beyond improvements in monthly migraine day (MMD) reduction. Investigations into the correlations between MMD reduction, symptom management, and HRQoL are lacking, particularly those that focus on improvements in canonical symptoms and improvement in patient-identified most-bothersome symptoms (PI-MBS), in patients treated with eptinezumab. This exploratory analysis identified efficacy measures mediating the effect of eptinezumab on HRQoL improvements in patients with migraine. METHODS: Data from the DELIVER study of patients with 2-4 prior preventive migraine treatment failures (NCT04418765) were inputted to two structural equation models describing sources of HRQoL improvement via Migraine-Specific Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (MSQ) scores. A single latent variable was defined to represent HRQoL and describe the sources of HRQoL in DELIVER. One model included all migraine symptoms while the second model included the PI-MBS as the only migraine symptom. Mediating variables capturing different aspects of efficacy included MMDs, other canonical symptoms, and PI-MBS. RESULTS: In the first model, reductions in MMDs and other canonical symptoms accounted for 35% (standardized effect size [SES] - 0.11) and 25% (SES - 0.08) of HRQoL improvement, respectively, with 41% (SES - 0.13) of improvement comprising "direct treatment effect," i.e., unexplained by mediators. In the second model, substantial HRQoL improvement with eptinezumab (86%; SES - 0.26) is due to MMD reduction (17%; SES - 0.05) and change in PI-MBS (69%; SES - 0.21). CONCLUSIONS: Improvements in HRQoL experienced by patients treated with eptinezumab can be substantially explained by its effect on migraine frequency and PI-MBS. Therefore, in addition to MMD reduction, healthcare providers should discuss PI-MBS improvements, since this may impact HRQoL. Health technology policymakers should consider implications of these findings in economic evaluation, as they point to alternative measurement of quality-adjusted life years to capture fully treatment benefits in cost-utility analyses. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT04418765 ; EudraCT (Identifier: 2019-004497-25; URL: https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/search?query=2019-004497-25 ).

Harris Poll Migraine Report Card: population-based examination of high-frequency headache/migraine and acute medication overuse.

BACKGROUND: Migraine is a disabling neurologic disease that can fluctuate over time in severity, frequency, and acute medication use. Harris Poll Migraine Report Card was a US population-based survey to ascertain quantifiable distinctions amongst individuals with current versus previous high-frequency headache/migraine and acute medication overuse (HFM+AMO). The objective of this report is to compare self-reported experiences in the migraine journey of adults with HFM+AMO to those who previously experienced HFM+AMO but currently have a sustained reduction in headache/migraine frequency and acute medication use. METHODS: An online survey was available to a general population panel of adults (≥18 years) with migraine per the ID Migraine™ screener. Respondents were classified into "current HFM+AMO" (within the last few months had ≥8 headache days/month and ≥10 days/month of acute medication use; n=440) or "previous HFM+AMO" (previously had HFM+AMO, but within the last few months had ≤7 headache days/month and ≤9 days/month of acute medication use; n=110). Survey questions pertained to demographics, diagnosis, living with migraine, healthcare provider (HCP) communication, and treatment. RESULTS: Participants in the current HFM+AMO group had 15.2 monthly headache days and 17.4 days of monthly acute medication use in last few months compared to 4.2 and 4.1 days for the previous HFM+AMO group, respectively. Overall, current preventive pharmacologic treatment use was low (15-16%; P>0.1 for current vs previous) in both groups. Previous HFM+AMO respondents reported better current acute treatment optimization. More respondents with current (80%) than previous HFM+AMO (66%) expressed concern with their current health (P<0.05). More than one-third of both groups wished their HCP better understood their mental/emotional health (current 37%, previous 35%; P>0.1 for current vs previous) and 47% (current) to 54% (previous) of respondents worried about asking their HCP too many questions (P>0.1 for current vs previous). CONCLUSION: Apart from optimization of acute medication, medical interventions did not significantly differentiate between the current and previous HFM+AMO groups. Use of preventive pharmacological medication was low in both groups. Adults with current HFM+AMO more often had health concerns, yet both groups expressed concerns of disease burden. Optimization of acute and preventive medication and addressing mental/emotional health concerns of patients are areas where migraine care may impact outcomes regardless of their disease burden.

Persistence to anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies and onabotulinumtoxinA among patients with migraine: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: To date, real-world evidence on persistence to anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (anti-CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) or onabotulinumtoxinA have excluded eptinezumab. This retrospective cohort study was performed to compare treatment persistency among patients with migraine on anti-CGRP mAbs (erenumab, fremanezumab, galcanezumab, or eptinezumab) or onabotulinumtoxinA. METHODS: This retrospective study used IQVIA PharmMetrics data. Adult patients with migraine treated with an anti-CGRP mAb or onabotulinumtoxinA who had 12 months of continuous insurance enrollment before starting treatment were included. A "most recent treatment episode" analysis was used in which the most recent episode was defined as the latest treatment period with the same drug (anti-CGRP mAb or onabotulinumtoxinA) without a ≥ 15-day gap in medication supply on/after June 25, 2020, to December 31, 2021. Patients were indexed at the start of their most recent episode. Patients were considered non-persistent and discontinued the therapy associated with their most recent episode if there was ≥ 15-day gap in medication supply. A Cox proportional-hazards model estimated the discontinuation hazard between treatments. The gap periods and cohort definition were varied in sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The study included 66,576 patients (median age 46 years, 88.6% female). More eptinezumab-treated patients had chronic migraine (727/1074), ≥ 3 previous acute (323/1074) or preventive (333/1074) therapies, and more prior treatment episodes (3) than other treatment groups. Based on a 15-day treatment gap, patients on subcutaneous anti-CGRP mAbs had a 32% (95% CI: 1.19, 1.49; erenumab), 42% (95% CI: 1.27, 1.61; galcanezumab), and 58% (95% CI: 1.42, 1.80; fremanezumab) higher discontinuation hazard than those receiving eptinezumab, with this relationship attenuated, but still statistically significant based on 30-day and 60-day treatment gaps. There was no significant difference in the discontinuation hazard between eptinezumab and onabotulinumtoxinA. Based on a 15-day treatment gap among patients who newly initiated therapy, the discontinuation hazard of subcutaneous anti-CGRP mAbs remained significantly higher compared to eptinezumab and onabotulinumtoxinA. CONCLUSION: Patients treated with eptinezumab demonstrated persistency that was higher than subcutaneous anti-CGRP mAbs and similar to onabotulinumtoxinA.

Using artificial intelligence to identify patients with migraine and associated symptoms and conditions within electronic health records.

BACKGROUND: Real-world evidence (RWE)-based on information obtained from sources such as electronic health records (EHRs), claims and billing databases, product and disease registries, and personal devices and health applications-is increasingly used to support healthcare decision making. There is variability in the collection of EHR data, which includes "structured data" in predefined fields (e.g., problem list, open claims, medication list, etc.) and "unstructured data" as free text or narrative. Healthcare providers are likely to provide more complete information as free text, but extracting meaning from these fields requires newer technologies and a rigorous methodology to generate higher-quality evidence. Herein, an approach to identify concepts associated with the presence and progression of migraine was developed and validated using the complete patient record in EHR data, including both the structured and unstructured portions. METHODS: "Traditional RWE" approaches (i.e., capture from structured EHR fields and extraction using structured queries) and "Advanced RWE" approaches (i.e., capture from unstructured EHR data and processing by artificial intelligence [AI] technology, including natural language processing and AI-based inference) were evaluated against a manual chart abstraction reference standard for data collected from a tertiary care setting. The primary endpoint was recall; differences were compared using chi square. RESULTS: Compared with manual chart abstraction, recall for migraine and headache were 66.6% and 29.6%, respectively, for Traditional RWE, and 96.8% and 92.9% for Advanced RWE; differences were statistically significant (absolute differences, 30.2% and 63.3%; P < 0.001). Recall of 6 migraine-associated symptoms favored Advanced RWE over Traditional RWE to a greater extent (absolute differences, 71.5-88.8%; P < 0.001). The difference between traditional and advanced techniques for recall of migraine medications was less pronounced, approximately 80% for Traditional RWE and ≥ 98% for Advanced RWE (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Unstructured EHR data, processed using AI technologies, provides a more credible approach to enable RWE in migraine than using structured EHR and claims data alone. An algorithm was developed that could be used to further study and validate the use of RWE to support diagnosis and management of patients with migraine.

Comparison of indirect treatment methods in migraine prevention to address differences in mode of administration.

Aim: Indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) are anchored on a placebo comparator, and the placebo response may vary according to drug administration route. Migraine preventive treatment studies were used to evaluate ITCs and determine whether mode of administration influences placebo response and the overall study findings. Materials & methods: Change from baseline in monthly migraine days produced by monoclonal antibody treatments (subcutaneous, intravenous) was compared using fixed-effects Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA), network meta-regression (NMR), and unanchored simulated treatment comparison (STC). Results: NMA and NMR provide mixed, rarely differentiated results between treatments, whereas unanchored STC strongly favors eptinezumab over other preventive treatments. Conclusion: Further investigations are needed to determine which ITC best reflects the impact of mode of administration on placebo.

Estimating treatment effects on health utility scores for patients living with migraine: a post hoc analysis of the DELIVER trial.

BACKGROUND: This post hoc analysis aimed to estimate eptinezumab's therapeutic effect on health utilities and determined to which extent monthly migraine days (MMDs) explain changes in health utilities. RESEARCH DESIGN/METHODS: DELIVER, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3b trial (NCT04418765), investigated eptinezumab efficacy and safety in patients with 2-4 prior migraine treatment failures. Regression analysis explored the relationship between utility scores and MMDs, with eptinezumab treatment as a covariate along with MMDs to identify any MMD-independent effect on utilities. Path analysis quantified eptinezumab's impact as mediated through MMD reduction. RESULTS: The base case model showed that each reduction in MMD was associated with a mean utility score increase (0.0189; 95% CI: 0.0180, 0.0198; P < 0.001). Mean utility score was generally higher for eptinezumab versus placebo, justifying addition of treatment effect to the base case model. Patients administered eptinezumab had on average 0.0562 (95% CI: 0.0382, 0.0742; P < 0.001) higher utility versus placebo when controlling for number of MMDs. From path analysis, MMD reduction resulting from eptinezumab treatment accounted for 53% additional utility gain observed in patients. CONCLUSIONS: Changes in MMDs alone inadequately captured migraine's impact on patient utility, as there was also a positive eptinezumab-driven, treatment-specific impact on utility score. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (CT.gov identifier: NCT04418765).

Cost-Utility Comparison of Bevacizumab and Aflibercept in the Treatment of Central or Hemiretinal Vein Occlusion in the SCORE2 Trial.

Importance: Retinal vein occlusion is the second most common retinal vascular disease. Bevacizumab was demonstrated in the Study of Comparative Treatments for Retinal Vein Occlusion 2 (SCORE2) to be noninferior to aflibercept with respect to visual acuity in study participants with macular edema due to central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) or hemiretinal vein occlusion (HRVO) following 6 months of therapy. In this study, the cost-utility of bevacizumab vs aflibercept for treatment of CRVO is evaluated. Objective: To investigate the relative cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab vs aflibercept for treatment of macular edema associated with CRVO or HRVO. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation study used a microsimulation cohort of patients with clinical and demographic characteristics similar to those of SCORE2 participants and a Markov process. Parameters were estimated and validated using a split-sample approach of the SCORE2 population. The simulated cohort included 5000 patients who were evaluated 100 times, each with a different set of characteristics randomly selected based on the SCORE2 trial. SCORE2 data were collected from September 2014 October 2019, and data were analyzed from October 2019 to July 2021. Interventions: Bevacizumab (followed by aflibercept among patients with a protocol-defined poor or marginal response to bevacizumab at month 6) vs aflibercept (followed by a dexamethasone implant among patients with a protocol-defined poor or marginal response to aflibercept at month 6). Main Outcomes and Measures: Incremental cost-utility ratio. Results: The simulation demonstrated that patients treated with aflibercept will have an expected cost $18 127 greater than those treated with bevacizumab in the year following initiation. When coupled with the lack of clinical superiority over bevacizumab (ie, patients treated with bevacizumab had a gain over aflibercept in visual acuity letter score of 4 in the treated eye and 2 in the fellow eye), these results demonstrate that first-line treatment with bevacizumab dominated aflibercept in the simulated cohort of SCORE2 participants. At current price levels, aflibercept would be considered the preferred cost-effective option only if treatment restored the patient to nearly perfect health. Conclusions and Relevance: While there will be some patients with CRVO-associated or HRVO-associated macular edema who will benefit from first-line treatment with aflibercept rather than bevacizumab, given the minimal differences in visual acuity outcomes and large cost differences for bevacizumab vs aflibercept, first-line treatment with bevacizumab is cost-effective for this condition.

Early clinical experience with eptinezumab: results of a retrospective observational study of patient response in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of eptinezumab for preventive migraine treatment in adults have been demonstrated in multiple, large-scale clinical trials. This non-interventional, retrospective, observational chart review was conducted to examine patient response to eptinezumab 100 mg or 300 mg every 12 weeks for 6 months in the clinical setting. METHODS: Eight headache specialists who reported early clinical experience with eptinezumab enrolled the first adults (1-6 adults per clinician; age ≥ 18 years) who met predefined selection criteria (including ≥ 12-month history of migraine, ≥ 4 migraine days/month prior to eptinezumab initiation, receipt of ≥ 2 consecutive eptinezumab doses, and ≥ 12-week follow-up period), and provided detailed patient, disease, treatment, and outcome information via SurveyMonkey and standardized case-report forms. RESULTS: Charts from 31 adults (median age, 49 years) with migraine (93.6% chronic) who received eptinezumab for the preventive treatment of migraine were reviewed. Most patients (26/31 [83.9%]) were initiated at 100 mg. Eptinezumab reduced mean headache frequency (24.3 monthly headache days [MHDs] at baseline; 17.1 MHDs at Month 6); mean migraine frequency (17.3 monthly migraine days [MMDs] at baseline; 9.1 MMDs at Month 6); attack severity (17/31 [54.8%] patients); acute headache medication use (12.5 acute medication days at baseline; 7.4 at Month 6); and patient-reported disability (11/22 [50.0%] severe at baseline; 7/19 [36.8%] at Month 6). More than three-quarters of patients (24/31 [77.4%]) perceived improved disability/function and most (30/31 [96.8%]) perceived eptinezumab to be well tolerated after 6 months. Most of the headache specialists reported that eptinezumab was well tolerated by patients (30/31 [96.8%]) and that the intravenous infusion experience was not challenging. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with migraine who received 6 months of preventive treatment with eptinezumab experienced reductions in migraine and headache frequency, disability, and acute medication use during the course of treatment.

Patient preferences for attributes of injected or infused preventive migraine medications: Findings from a discrete choice experiment.

OBJECTIVE: To assess preferences among adults with migraine for differentiating attributes of injected or infused preventive treatment options and evaluate their importance in determining a treatment choice. BACKGROUND: Adults with migraine and health-care providers consider many factors when making treatment decisions. Injected or infused preventive migraine treatment options differ in several attributes, including mode of administration and dosing frequency, which may be preferentially selected or avoided by patients. Understanding a patient's preference is important for clinicians as they advise on various treatment options. METHODS: A total of 604 US adults diagnosed with migraine participated in an online survey that captured information on demographics, migraine history, and treatment preferences. A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was used to evaluate participants' preferences for specific attributes of injected/infused preventive migraine therapies. The DCE data were utilized to estimate attribute importance (expressed as a percentage) and identify subgroups that had different distributions of preferences. RESULTS: In the overall migraine population, mode of administration (28.8%), durability of effectiveness (27.0%), and speed of onset (25.5%) had the highest relative importance, whereas administration setting (9.9%) and dosing frequency (8.8%) had the lowest. Four distinct subgroups were identified: Group 1 (n = 128) preferred self-injection administration and durability of effectiveness; Group 2 (n = 189) expressed aversion to cranial injections; Group 3 (n = 158) prioritized rapid speed of onset; and Group 4 (n = 129) favored health-care provider administration and durability of effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Speed of onset, durability of effectiveness, and mode of administration are key moderators of treatment preference among US adults with migraine. Certain segments of the migraine population prioritize specific treatment attributes over others, with intravenous infusion not considered a barrier in three of four identified segments. Clinicians can best help their patients find the right medication if they understand which medication attributes are most and least important to them.

Relationships between headache frequency, disability, and disability-related unemployment among adults with migraine.

BACKGROUND: Migraine is the second most common cause of disability worldwide. Understanding the relationship between migraine and employment status is critical for policymakers, as disability-related unemployment is associated with eligibility for private or governmental disability insurance payments and other associated support for those unable to work because of disability. OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between migraine frequency and selfreported employment status and overall disability in a US representative survey. METHODS: Using data from the 2019 National Health and Wellness Survey (NHWS) (Kantar Health), adults in the United States (aged 18-65 years) reporting at least 1 migraine day in the past 30 days were categorized by headache frequency: low-frequency episodic migraine (LFEM) (≤4 days/month), moderate-frequency EM (MFEM) (5-9 days/month), high-frequency EM (HFEM) (10-14 days/month), or chronic migraine (CM) (≥15 days/month). A control group of adults without migraine with similar baseline characteristics was identified by propensity score matching. Disability-related unemployment was defined as participants responding "short-term disability" or "long-term disability" to occupational status on the NHWS. The frequency of short- or long-term disability was then evaluated across headache frequency groups. In addition, participants were asked to assess migraine-related disability via the Migraine Disability questionnaire (MIDAS). RESULTS: A total of 1,962 respondents with LFEM, 987 with MFEM, 554 with HFEM, and 926 with CM were included in this analysis, along with 4,429 matched controls. Headache frequency was associated both with increased MIDAS score and with employment disability (P < 0.001); 12.3% (n = 114 of 926) of participants with CM reported employment disability, as did 4.4% (n = 86 of 1,962) of the LFEM group and 6.9% (n = 306 of 4,429) of matched controls. There was considerable discordance between the proportion of participants classified as disabled via MIDAS vs those reporting employment-related disability. CONCLUSIONS: More frequent migraine headaches are associated with a higher likelihood of self-reported short- and long-term employment disability and overall migraine-related disability, suggesting that health and economic policymakers must seek ways to maximize the employment opportunities for people living with migraine that may benefit from novel preventive treatments. DISCLOSURES: Robert E Shapiro is a research consultant for Eli Lilly and Lundbeck. Ashley A Martin and Martine C Maculaitis are employees of Cerner Enviza (formerly Kantar Health), which received payment from Lundbeck to conduct the research. Shiven Bhardwaj was an employee of Lundbeck at the time of study and manuscript development. Heather Thomson and Carlton Anderson are employees of Lundbeck. Steven M Kymes is an employee and stockholder of Lundbeck. Financial support for research conducted and manuscript preparation was provided by Lundbeck.

Development and validation of a novel model for characterizing migraine outcomes within real-world data.

BACKGROUND: In disease areas with 'soft' outcomes (i.e., the subjective aspects of a medical condition or its management) such as migraine or depression, extraction and validation of real-world evidence (RWE) from electronic health records (EHRs) and other routinely collected data can be challenging due to how the data are collected and recorded. In this study, we aimed to define and validate a scalable framework model to measure outcomes of migraine treatment and prevention by use of artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms within EHR data. METHODS: Headache specialists defined descriptive features based on routinely collected clinical data. Data elements were weighted to define a 10-point scale encompassing headache severity (1-7 points) and associated features (0-3 points). A test data set was identified, and a reference standard was manually produced by trained annotators. Automation (i.e., AI) was used to extract features from the unstructured data of patient encounters and compared to the reference standard. A threshold of 70% close agreement (within 1 point) between the automated score and the human annotator was considered to be a sufficient extraction accuracy. The accuracy of AI in identifying features used to construct the outcome model was also evaluated and success was defined as achieving an F1 score (i.e., the weighted harmonic mean of the precision and recall) of 80% in identifying encounters. RESULTS: Using data from 2,006 encounters, 11 features were identified and included in the model; the average F1 scores for automated extraction were 92.0% for AI applied to unstructured data. The outcome model had excellent accuracy in characterizing migraine status with an exact match for 77.2% of encounters and a close match (within 1 point) for 82.2%, compared with manual extraction scores-well above the 70% match threshold set prior to the study. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate the feasibility of technology-enabled models for validated determination of soft outcomes such as migraine progression using the data elements typically captured in the real-world clinical setting, providing a scalable approach to credible EHR-based clinical studies.

Durability of the Clinical Benefit of Droxidopa for Neurogenic Orthostatic Hypotension During 12 Weeks of Open-Label Treatment.

INTRODUCTION: Droxidopa is approved to treat neurogenic orthostatic hypotension (nOH) symptoms in patients with autonomic failure based on short-term clinical trial data. Additional data on the long-term efficacy of droxidopa are needed. We have evaluated the 12-week efficacy and tolerability of droxidopa in patients with nOH in an open-label period of an ongoing phase 4 study . METHODS: Patients received 12 weeks of open-label treatment with an individually optimized droxidopa dose (100-600 mg, 3 times daily) as identified during a preceding titration period. Patient-reported outcomes included the Orthostatic Hypotension Symptom Assessment (OHSA), Orthostatic Hypotension Daily Activity Scale (OHDAS), and clinician- and patient-rated Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S) scales. Supine blood pressure (BP) and adverse events (AEs) were recorded. RESULTS: Data from 114 patients enrolled into the 12-week open-label period were available for analyses. After 12 weeks of droxidopa treatment, patients reported significant (P < 0.0001) improvements from baseline in OHSA and OHDAS composite and individual item scores and on clinician and patient CGI-S scores. Mean ± SD supine systolic and diastolic BP at week 12 increased by 15.5 ± 22.9 and 7.8 ± 11.7 mmHg from baseline, respectively (P < 0.0001 for both). The most frequently reported AEs were falls (17%), headache (13%), and dizziness (9%); one (0.9%) patient reported an AE of supine hypertension. CONCLUSION: During 12 weeks of open-label treatment, droxidopa was associated with significant improvement from baseline in nOH symptoms and activities of daily living. No clinically important changes in supine hypertension or AEs of concern were observed. These results support the efficacy of droxidopa beyond 2 weeks of treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02586623.

Psychometric validation of a patient-reported single-item assessment of 'Good Day Bad Day' in a neurogenic orthostatic hypotension population treated with droxidopa.

BACKGROUND: Symptoms of neurogenic orthostatic hypotension (nOH), including lightheadedness/dizziness, presyncope, syncope, and falls, can lead to impaired functional ability and reduced quality of life. Because the severity and frequency of nOH symptoms fluctuate, it may be difficult for patients to accurately quantify the effect of symptoms on their daily lives using available outcome measures. A new single-item instrument, the 'Good Day Bad Day,' was developed, and its psychometric validity was assessed in patients with nOH. METHODS: Data from a 6-month, prospective, observational cohort study of patients with nOH who were newly initiating droxidopa treatment were used. Patients were asked to quantify the number of good and bad days in the previous 7 days and responded to other validated patient-reported outcomes instruments. The concurrent and discriminant validities and the stability of the Good Day Bad Day instrument were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 153 patients were included in the analysis (mean [SD] age, 62.3 [17] years). Change in the number of good days moderately correlated with improvements in other patient-reported outcomes (rho value range, -0.38 to -0.61). When data were examined categorically (low vs high symptom severity), the mean number of good days was higher in subgroups representing low symptom severity across measures at 1, 3, and 6 months (all P ≤ 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The Good Day Bad Day instrument provided good discrimination at baseline and over time and may aid in assessment of the effects of nOH symptoms on patients.

Who Would Pay Higher Taxes for Better Mental Health? Results of a Large-Sample National Choice Experiment.

Policy Points  Public funding for mental health programs must compete with other funding priorities in limited state budgets.  Valuing state-funded mental health programs in a policy-relevant context requires consideration of how much benefit from other programs the public is willing to forgo to increase mental health program benefits and how much the public is willing to be taxed for such program benefits.  Taxpayer resistance to increased taxes to pay for publicly funded mental health programs and perceived benefits of such programs vary with state population size.  In all states, taxpayers seem to support increased public funding for mental health programs such as state Medicaid services, suggesting such programs are underfunded from the perspective of the average taxpayer. CONTEXT: The direct and indirect impacts of serious mental illness (SMI) on health care systems and communities represents a significant burden. However, the value that community members place on alleviating this burden is not known, and SMI treatment must compete with a long list of other publicly funded priorities. This study defines the value of public mental health interventions as what the public would accept, either in the form of higher taxes or in reductions in nonhealth programs, in return for increases in the number of mental health program beneficiaries. METHODS: We developed and fielded a best-practice discrete-choice experiment survey to quantify respondents' willingness to be taxed for increased spending among several competing programs, including a program for treating severe mental health conditions. A realistic decision frame was used to elicit respondents' willingness to support expanded state budgets for mental health programs if that expansion required either cuts in the competing publicly financed programs or tax increases. The survey was administered to a general population national sample of 10,000 respondents. FINDINGS: Nearly half the respondents in our sample either chose "no budget increase" for all budget scenarios or had preferences that were too disordered to estimate trade-off values. Including zero values for those respondents, we found that the mean (median) amount that all respondents were willing to be taxed annually for public mental health programs ranged between $156 ($99) per year for large-population states and $343 ($181) per year for small-population states. Respondents would accept reductions of between 1.6 and 3.4 beneficiaries in other programs in return for 1 additional mental health program beneficiary. CONCLUSIONS: Our results are consistent with findings that a substantial portion of the US public is unwilling to pay higher taxes. Nevertheless, even including the substantial number of respondents who opposed any tax increase, the willingness of both the mean and median respondent to be taxed for mental health program expansions implies that programs providing mental health services such as state Medicaid are underfunded.

Characterization of the changes in supine blood pressure with long-term use of droxidopa in patients with neurogenic orthostatic hypotension.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Patients with neurogenic orthostatic hypotension (nOH) due to autonomic dysfunction may also experience supine hypertension (defined as supine systolic blood pressure [SBP] ≥140 mmHg). Because pressor agents used to improve nOH symptoms by increasing standing blood pressure (BP) may exacerbate or cause supine hypertension, changes in supine BP with nOH treatments are of interest. METHODS: This post hoc study examined changes in SBP in patients receiving droxidopa (100-600 mg, three times daily) during a 12-month long-term extension study based on whether patients had supine hypertension (ie, supine SBP ≥140 mmHg) at baseline. Shifts from baseline in supine hypertension categorization and mean supine and standing SBP after 6 and 12 months of treatment with droxidopa were determined. RESULTS: At baseline, 64 patients did not have supine hypertension (mean supine SBP, 120 mmHg) and 38 patients had supine hypertension (mean supine SBP, 157 mmHg). A similar percentage of patients shifted from their respective baseline supine hypertension categorization (ie, with or without supine hypertension) to the other category after receiving droxidopa for 6 or 12 months. After 12 months of droxidopa treatment, patients with supine hypertension at baseline had a mean supine SBP decrease of 3 mmHg and a mean standing SBP increase of 9 mmHg. Patients without supine hypertension at baseline had mean supine and standing SBP increases of 12 and 15 mmHg, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: There was no consistent or progressive elevation in supine SBP over time during the 12-month treatment with droxidopa in patients either with or without supine hypertension at baseline. These data suggest that long-term droxidopa treatment for nOH does not adversely affect supine BP.

A modelling approach to estimate the prevalence of treatment-resistant schizophrenia in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Schizophrenia is a condition that places a significant burden on individuals with the condition, their family, and society. A large proportion of those treated for schizophrenia do not experience treatment response and are referred to as having "treatment-resistant schizophrenia" (TRS). Expert opinion has long held that the prevalence of TRS among individuals with schizophrenia is 30%, but the basis of this estimate is unclear. This article presents a model developed for estimating the prevalence of TRS in the United States 2014. METHODS: An incidence-prevalence-mortality model was developed to estimate the prevalence of TRS in the United States. The model was populated with data from public health agencies and published literature. Prevalence in 2014 was modelled using a Markov cohort simulation for each birth cohort between 1930 to 2014. RESULTS: Using different scenarios for baseline incidence, relative risks of mortality, it was estimated that approximately 22% of individuals with schizophrenia would be considered treatment-resistant in 2014. DISCUSSION: The results suggests that prevalence of TRS may be somewhat lower than the 30% often reported, however this is highly dependent on the definition of treatment resistance. Methods such as this may help answer epidemiological and health policy questions as well as test the influence of key underlying assumptions.