Resource utilization impact of topiramate for migraine prevention in the managed-care setting.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the pattern of headache-related resource utilization and costs before and after initiation of preventive migraine treatment with topiramate in a sample of a large managed-care population. METHODS: This study was a retrospective, longitudinal, cohort study analysis of medical and pharmacy claims using The HealthCore Integrated Research Network Database. Patients were required to have had at least one pharmacy claim for topiramate between 7/1/00 and 11/30/04, and at least 12 dosage units dispensed of any combination of acute migraine treatments (triptan, ergotamine, or ergotamine combination) during the 6-month period preceding the first pharmacy claim for topiramate (the index date). Headache-related inpatient and outpatient resource utilizations were compared pre-index vs. post-index period 1 (months 1-6) and pre-index vs. post-index period 2 (months 7-12). Statistical analyses included McNemar tests for categorical variables and paired t-tests for continuous variables. RESULTS: A total of 3246 patients met the inclusion criteria. The mean (+/- SD) age was 44 +/- 10 years and 88% were female. From pre- to post-index period 2, outpatient visits significantly decreased by 30% (p < 0.0001), diagnostic procedures decreased by 74% (p = 0.0013), emergency room (ER) visits decreased by 27% (p < 0.0001), and abortive prescriptions decreased by 25% (p < 0.0001). No significant differences were found in mean number of hospitalization days. Total headache-related inpatient costs and outpatient costs decreased (p < 0.01) during post-index period 2 (43 and 46%, respectively). Headache-related pharmacy costs increased from pre- to post-index period 2. CONCLUSION: Topiramate treatment for migraine prevention was associated with significantly lower healthcare resource use (ER visits, diagnostics, acute treatment) in the first 6 months of treatment, with continuing decreases, including physician office visits, during the second 6 months of treatment. LIMITATIONS: Since this study is a claims-based analysis there is the potential introduction of non-claims identifiable factors that might influence resource use such as lifestyle modifications and over-the-counter medications. In addition, adherence to topiramate treatment was not accounted for in this study. Nonetheless, this study provides important insights into the benefit of preventive migraine treatment in actual clinical practice.

Persistence with migraine prophylactic treatment and acute migraine medication utilization in the managed care setting.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe persistence with migraine prophylactic treatment and acute migraine medication utilization in patients prescribed migraine prophylaxis. METHODS: For this retrospective cohort study, the Health Core Integrated Research Database provided pharmacy/medical claims data from 5 commercial health insurance plans (ie, excluding Medicare and Medicaid) on adult patients with migraine. Eligible patients had >or=1 pharmacy claim for a migraine prophylactic medication between July 1, 2000, and May 31, 2005, and >or=12 U of any combination of acute treatment (serotonin receptor agonist [triptan], ergotamine, or ergotamine combination) dispensed during the 180-day period preceding a first pharmacy claim for a prophylactic medication (index date). The prophylactic medication identified at index date was used for categorizing patients into 1 of 4 cohorts: amitriptyline, propranolol/timolol, divalproex sodium, or topiramate (reference). Kaplan-Meier curves were used for evaluating unadjusted risk for discontinuation over time, and a multivariate Cox proportional hazards model was developed to analyze factors associated with discontinuation of prophylactic medication. RESULTS: A total of 12,783 patients met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis (amitriptyline, 3749; propranolol/timolol, 2718; divalproex sodium, 1644; and topiramate, 4672). The mean (SD) ages were not significantly different across cohorts (43.9 [11.3], 42.0 [11.1], 43.1 [11.3], and 43.9 [10.6] years, respectively). The mean duration of treatment was significantly longer (131 [184] days) with topiramate compared with amitriptyline (94 [152] days), propranolol/ timolol (119 [180] days), and divalproex sodium (109 [158] days) (P < 0.001, P = 0.005, and P<0.001,respectively). The risks for discontinuing prophylactic treatment were 23%, 6%, and 11% higher with amitriptyline, propranolol/timolol, and divalproex sodium, respectively, compared with topiramate (P<0.001, P = 0.024, and P <0.001). Patients prescribed topiramate had a higher mean consumption rate of triptans preindex; postindex, decreases in triptan use were observed in all cohorts, although the magnitude of the decrease was greatest in patients prescribed topiramate compared with the other cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, prescription of topiramate was associated with greater persistence with prophylactic treatment than the other prophylactic drugs. Furthermore, greater reductions in acute treatment utilization, particularly triptans, were observed among patients prescribed topiramate compared with the other prophylactic cohorts.