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.

Real-World Persistence of Successive Biologics in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Findings From ROTARY.

BACKGROUND: Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) may receive multiple successive biologic treatments in clinical practice; however, data are limited on the comparative effectiveness of biologics and the impact of treatment sequence on outcomes. METHODS: The ROTARY (Real wOrld ouTcomes Across tReatment sequences in inflammatorY bowel disease patients) study was a retrospective, observational cohort study conducted using data from the Optum Clinical Database between January 1, 2012, and February 29, 2020. Adult patients with Crohn's disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC) who received 2 biologics successively were included. Biologic treatment sequences were analyzed descriptively. Cox proportional hazards models, adjusted for baseline demographics and clinical characteristics, were used to estimate the hazard ratio of switching or discontinuation for each first- and second-line biologic compared with first- and second-line adalimumab, respectively. RESULTS: In total, 4648 patients with IBD (CD, n = 3008; UC, n = 1640) were identified. Most patients received tumor necrosis factor α antagonist (anti-TNFα) treatment followed by another anti-TNFα treatment or vedolizumab. Vedolizumab and infliximab had 39.4% and 34.6% lower rates of switching or discontinuation than adalimumab, respectively, as first-line biologics in patients with CD and 30.8% and 34.3% lower rates as first-line biologics in patients with UC, respectively. Vedolizumab, infliximab, and ustekinumab had 47.2%, 40.0%, and 43.5% lower rates of switching or discontinuation than adalimumab, respectively, as second-line biologics in CD and 56.5%, 43.0%, and 45.6% lower rates as second-line biologics in patients with UC, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Although anti-TNFα treatments were most commonly prescribed, the adjusted rates of discontinuation for adalimumab as both a first- and second-line biologic were higher than for vedolizumab, infliximab, or ustekinumab.

Patients with inflammatory bowel disease are commonly treated with different sequences of biologics. This study shows that patients who receive adalimumab as their first or second biologic treatment either stop or switch to another biologic at a greater rate than those who are treated with vedolizumab, infliximab, and ustekinumab.

Dose Escalation of Biologics in Biologic-Naïve Patients With Ulcerative Colitis: Outcomes From the ODESSA-UC Study.

Background: Dose escalation of biologics may regain treatment response in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). However, dose escalation rates and associated outcomes and costs are not well characterized in biologic-naïve patients receiving antitumor necrosis factor-alpha (anti-TNF-α) treatments, such as infliximab or adalimumab or vedolizumab. Methods: ODESSA-UC, a retrospective cohort study investigating dose escalation in patients with UC who had received first-line biologics, used data from IBM MarketScan databases. Adults with UC and ≥1 claim for an index drug (adalimumab, infliximab, or vedolizumab) were eligible. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate the adjusted rate of dose escalation. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the odds of experiencing adverse outcomes (corticosteroid use, infection, sepsis, or inflammatory bowel disease-related hospitalization) and incurring index drug costs. Results: A year after the start of maintenance, a lower proportion of patients experienced dose escalation with vedolizumab (22.3%) than adalimumab (43.0%). The dose escalation risk was significantly higher for infliximab (hazard ratio [HR], 1.894; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.486-2.413) and adalimumab (HR, 2.120; 95% CI, 1.680-2.675) than for vedolizumab. The odds of experiencing an adverse outcome after dose escalation were higher for anti-TNF-α treatments than for vedolizumab (odds ratio, 2.052; 95% CI, 1.200-3.507). Index drug costs after dose escalation were lowest for vedolizumab. Conclusions: Patients with UC receiving vedolizumab had a lower risk of dose escalation and lower subsequent costs than patients receiving anti-TNF-α treatments. Our study demonstrates the possible clinical and economic implications of dose escalation.

Comparison of surgery rates in biologic-naïve patients with Crohn's disease treated with vedolizumab or ustekinumab: findings from SOJOURN.

BACKGROUND: Crohn's disease (CD) is a chronic inflammatory bowel disease characterized by relapsing and remitting inflammation that leads to progressive bowel damage. Despite advances in medical treatment for CD, many patients require surgical intervention. Most studies of surgery rates are from patients treated with anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha (anti-TNFα) treatments, with comparatively little data on the surgery rates of patients treated with vedolizumab and ustekinumab. SOJOURN aimed to estimate the hazard rate and incidence of the first CD-related surgery following initiation of treatment with vedolizumab or ustekinumab in biologic-naïve patients with CD. METHODS: SOJOURN was a retrospective, observational cohort study examining administrative claims data from the Optum® Research Database between July 1, 2017 and March 31, 2020. Included participants were adults with a diagnosis of CD and a claim for vedolizumab or ustekinumab (defined as the index treatment) between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2019, with no claims for a biologic in the 6 months before initiation of this treatment. The variable follow-up started on the day after the index date and continued until whichever came first of discontinuation of the index treatment, surgery event, switching of the index treatment, initiation of combination biologic treatment, disenrollment, or March 31, 2020. The time to the first CD-related surgery on biologic treatment was estimated by Kaplan-Meier analysis. The hazard ratio and incidence rate ratio of CD-related surgery for each treatment cohort was compared using a Cox proportional hazards model and a Poisson regression model, respectively. RESULTS: Of the 1,122 included patients, 578 received vedolizumab and 544 received ustekinumab. After 1 year of the variable follow-up, 7.7% of patients receiving vedolizumab and 11.6% of patients receiving ustekinumab had undergone a CD-related surgery. Vedolizumab was associated with a 34.2% lower hazard rate of surgery (hazard ratio 0.658, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.436-0.994, p = 0.047) and a 34.5% lower incidence of surgery (rate ratio 0.655, 95% CI 0.434-0.988, p = 0.044) than ustekinumab. CONCLUSIONS: This real-world analysis of biologic-naïve patients with CD suggests that vedolizumab is associated with greater effectiveness in reducing the rate of CD-related surgery than ustekinumab.

Efficacy and Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants (DOACs) Versus Warfarin in Atrial Fibrillation Patients with Prior Stroke: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) to warfarin for secondary stroke prevention among adult patients with atrial fibrillation and prior stroke. METHODS: Major repositories were screened for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), RCT subgroups, and observational studies (OBSs, divided in claims and non-claims). Occurrences of ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack, systemic embolism, all-cause mortality, intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), and major bleeding were outcomes of interest. Hazard ratios (HRs) and their confidence intervals (95%CIs) were pooled using random-effects models for each study design. Claims studies were analyzed separately from non-claims, while RCT subgroups were grouped with OBSs (non-claims) as the randomization was broken. RESULTS: Of 8647 articles, 20 were included (one RCT, six RCT subgroups, nine claims, and four non-claims). Comparing DOACs to warfarin, pooled HRs (95%CI) were consistently in favor of DOACs although some did not reach statistical significance: for ischemic stroke, 0.84 (0.66-1.07) in claims; 0.90 (0.77-1.06) in non-claims and RCT subgroups; for systemic embolism, 0.77 (0.62-0.96) in claims; 0.86 (0.77-0.96) in non-claims and RCT subgroups; for all-cause mortality, 0.57 (0.33-0.99) in claims; 0.87 (0.79-0.96) in non-claims and RCT subgroups; for ICH, 0.72 (0.39-1.33) in claims; 0.51 (0.38-0.67) in non-claims and RCT subgroups; and for major bleeding, 0.86 (0.71-1.03) in claims; 0.90 (0.76-1.08) for non-claims and RCT subgroups. CONCLUSION: DOACs were associated with better efficacy and safety profiles than warfarin in atrial fibrillation patients with prior stroke, more specifically a lower risk of systemic embolism, all-cause mortality, and ICH.