Search

Objective: To describe treatment patterns and direct healthcare costs over 3 years following initiation of standard of care acute and preventive migraine medications in patients with migraine in the United States. Background: There are limited data on long‐term (>1 year) migraine treatments patterns and associated outcomes. Methods: This was a retrospective, observational cohort study using US claims data from the IBM® MarketScan® Research Database (January 2010–December 2017). Adults were included if they had a prescription claim for acute migraine treatments (AMT) or preventive migraine treatments (PMT) in the index period (January 2011–December 2014). The AMT cohort was categorized as persistent, cycled, or added‐on subgroups; the PMT cohort was categorized PMT‐persistent, switched without gaps, or cycled with gaps. Migraine‐specific annual direct costs (2017 US$) across AMT and PMT cohort subgroups were summarized at baseline through 3 years from index (follow‐up). Results: During the index period, 20,778 and 42,259 patients initiated an AMT and a PMT, respectively. At the 3‐year follow‐up, migraine‐specific direct costs were lower in the persistent subgroup relative to the non‐persistent subgroups in both AMT (mean [SD]: $789 [$1741] vs. $2847 [$8149] in the added‐on subgroup and $862 [$5426] for the cycled subgroup) and PMT cohorts (mean [SD]: $1817 [$5892] in the persistent subgroup vs. $4257 [$11,392] in the switched without gaps subgroup and $3269 [$18,540] in the cycled with gaps subgroup). Acute medication overuse was lower in the persistent subgroup (1025/6504 [27.2%]) vs. non‐persistent subgroups (11,236/58,863 [32.2%] in cycled with gaps subgroup and 1431/6504 [39.4%] in the switched without gaps subgroup). Most patients used multiple acute (19,717/20,778 [94.9%]) or preventive (38,494/42,259 [91.1%]) pharmacological therapies over 3 years following treatment initiation. Gaps in preventive therapy were common; an average gap ranged from 85 to 211 days (~3–7 months). Conclusion: Migraine‐specific annual healthcare costs and acute migraine medication overuse remained lowest among patients with persistent AMT and PMT versus non‐persistent treatment. Study findings are limited to the US population. Future studies should compare costs and associated outcomes between newer preventive migraine medications in patients with migraine. Plain Language Summary: Little is known about how patients use medications to acutely treat or prevent migraine over longer periods of time and their associated costs. This study used information from medical and pharmacy claims to understand costs over time for three groups of patients with migraine: (1) those who remained on the same medication for 3 years, (2) those who changed medications, or (3) those who stopped treatment and then changed medications. Results showed that fewer than one in 10 patients stayed on the same medication to treat or prevent migraine over 3 years, but migraine costs and acute migraine medication overuse were lowest in these patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To describe long-term (24-month) treatment patterns of patients initiating galcanezumab versus standard of care (SOC) preventive migraine treatments including anticonvulsants, beta-blockers, antidepressants, and onabotulinumtoxinA using administrative claims data. This retrospective cohort study, which used Optum de-identified Market Clarity data, included adults with migraine with ≥1 claim for galcanezumab or SOC preventive migraine therapy (September 1, 2018 − March 31, 2020) and continuous database enrollment for 12 months before (baseline) and 24 months after (follow-up) the index date (date of first claim). Baseline patient demographics, clinical characteristics, and treatment patterns were analyzed after 24-month follow-up, including adherence (measured as the proportion of days covered [PDC]), persistence, discontinuation (≥60-day gap), restart, and treatment switch. Propensity score matching (1:1) was used to balance the galcanezumab and SOC cohorts. The study included 2307 matched patient pairs with 24-month follow-up. The mean age across cohorts was 44.5 years (females: ∼87%). Patients in the galcanezumab versus SOC cohort demonstrated greater treatment adherence (PDC: 48% vs. 38%), with more patients considered adherent (PDC ≥80%: 26.6% vs. 20.7%) and persistent (322.1 vs. 236.4 d) (all p <.001). After 24-month follow-up, fewer galcanezumab-treated patients had discontinued compared with SOC-treated patients (80.1% vs. 84.7%; p <.001), of which 41.3% and 39.6% switched to a non-index medication, respectively. The most prevalent medication patients switched to in both cohorts was erenumab. Significantly greater proportions of patients who initiated galcanezumab versus SOC medications switched to fremanezumab (p <.001) and onabotulinumtoxinA (p =.016). Patients who initiated galcanezumab for migraine prevention had higher treatment adherence and persistence compared with those who initiated SOC medications after 24-month follow-up. Only few patients (3 − 13%) with migraine, who qualify for preventive treatment, are using them. Conventional preventive treatments have not been developed specifically for migraine treatment, and more than half of the patients stop using them prematurely. Calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies such as galcanezumab, fremanezumab, and erenumab are newer treatments that provide migraine-specific preventive treatment. Prior studies have compared 6- to 12-month migraine medication use by patients starting galcanezumab versus those starting traditional standard of care (SOC) migraine preventive medications. We compared long-term (24-month) migraine medication use in patients starting galcanezumab versus those starting SOC migraine preventive medications to confirm if the results are sustained over a longer period. Over 24 months, patients who used galcanezumab followed the prescribed treatment regimen to a greater extent compared with those who used SOC medications (48% vs. 38%, respectively). Additionally, patients using galcanezumab continued treatment for a longer time compared with those using SOC. Over 24 months, about 85% of patients stopped taking SOC medications, while around 80% of patients stopped taking galcanezumab. Our findings indicate that patients with migraine are more likely to continue using galcanezumab as a preventive treatment for a longer period compared with SOC medications. This study helps identify gaps in the preventive treatment of migraine and provides insights on how they are not being used enough. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study assessed the efficacy and safety of tanezumab in subjects with cancer pain predominantly due to bone metastasis receiving background opioid therapy. Methods: Subjects were randomized (stratified by (1) tumor aggressiveness and (2) presence/absence of concomitant anticancer treatment) to placebo or tanezumab 20 mg. Treatment was administered by subcutaneous injection every 8 weeks for 24 weeks (3 doses) followed by a 24-week safety follow-up period. The primary outcome was change in daily average pain in the index bone metastasis cancer pain site (from 0 = no pain to 10 = worst possible pain) from baseline to week 8. Results: LS mean (SE) change in pain at week 8 was −1.25 (0.35) for placebo (n = 73) and –2.03 (0.35) for tanezumab 20 mg (n = 72). LS mean (SE) [95% CI] difference from placebo was –0.78 (0.37) [–1.52, –0.04]; P =.0381 with α = 0.0478. The number of subjects with a treatment-emergent adverse event during the treatment period was 50 (68.5%) for placebo and 53 (73.6%) for tanezumab 20 mg. The number of subjects with a prespecified joint safety event was 0 for placebo and 2 (2.8%) for tanezumab 20 mg (pathologic fracture; n = 2). Conclusion: Tanezumab 20 mg met the primary efficacy endpoint at week 8. Conclusions on longer-term efficacy are limited since the study was not designed to evaluate the durability of the effect beyond 8 weeks. Safety findings were consistent with adverse events expected in subjects with cancer pain due to bone metastasis and the known safety profile of tanezumab. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02609828. Bone metastasis is a common cause of cancer-related pain. This article reports on the potential of anti-nerve growth factor therapies, such as tanezumab, to reduce pain caused by bone metastases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prediction of treatment responses is essential to move forward translational science. Our question was to identify patient‐based variables that predicted responses to treatments. We conducted secondary analyses on pooled data from two randomized phase III clinical trials (NCT02697773 and NCT02709486) conducted in participants with moderate to severe osteoarthritis randomized to subcutaneous placebo (n = 514) or tanezumab 2.5 mg (n = 514). We used gradient boosted regression trees to identify variables that predicted Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain subscale scores at Week 16 and marginal plots to determine the directional relationship between each variable category and responses to placebo or tanezumab within the models. We also used Virtual Twins models to identify potential subgroups of response to the active treatment vs. placebo. We found that responses to placebo were predicted by baseline WOMAC Physical Function, baseline WOMAC Pain, the radiographic classification of the index joint, and the standard deviation of diary pain scores at baseline. In contrast, baseline WOMAC Pain along with failure of prior medications, duration of disease, and standard deviation of diary pain scores at baseline were predictive of tanezumab responses as expressed by the WOMAC Pain scores at Week 16. Those who responded to tanezumab vs. placebo were identified based on the radiographic classification of the index joint and either age or smoking status. These secondary‐data analyses identified distinct and common patient‐based variables to predict response to placebo or tanezumab. These findings will inform the design of future clinical trials, helping to move forward clinical pharmacology and translational science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patients often take opioids to relieve osteoarthritis (OA) pain despite limited benefits and potential harms. This study aimed to compare cross-sectional perspectives of patients that were taking prescription opioid (N = 471) or nonopioid medications (N = 185) for OA in terms of satisfaction, expectations of effectiveness, and concerns. Patients prescribed opioids (>7 days) reported more prior treatments (2.47 vs. 1.74), greater mean pain intensity (5.47 vs. 4.11), and worse quality of life (EQ-5D-5L index value mean 0.45 vs. 0.71) than patients prescribed nonopioid medications (all p < 0.0001). Based on linear regression models adjusting for demographics and pain intensity, patients prescribed opioids were less satisfied with overall regimen (3.40 vs. 3.67, p = 0.0322), had less belief that medications were meeting effectiveness expectations (2.72 vs. 3.13, p < 0.0001), and had more concerns about treatments being "not very good" (3.66 vs. 3.22, p = 0.0026) and addiction (3.30 vs. 2.65, p < 0.0001) than patients prescribed nonopioid regimens. When the models were replicated for subgroups with ≥30 days' medication regimen duration, the findings were consistent with the main analyses. Patients have concerns about the risk of opioid addiction, but those with greater disease burden and more prior treatments continue taking opioid regimens. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Opioids are often prescribed for osteoarthritis (OA) pain, despite recommendations to limit use due to minimal benefits and associated harms. This study aimed to assess physicians' practice patterns and perceptions regarding opioids by specialty one year following the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published guidance on opioid prescribing. The 139/153 (90.8%) physicians who reported prescribing opioids in the previous year reported decreased prescribing for mild OA (51.3%, 26.5% and 33.3% of primary care physicians, rheumatologists, and orthopaedic surgeons, respectively), moderate OA (50.0%, 47.1% and 48.1%) and severe OA (43.6%, 41.2% and 44.4%). Prescribing changes were attributed to the CDC guidelines for 58.9% of primary care physicians, 59.1% of rheumatologists, and 73.3% of orthopaedic surgeons. Strong opioids were mostly reserved as third-line treatment. Although treatment effectiveness post-CDC guidelines was not assessed, perceptions of efficacy and quality of life with opioids significantly differed across specialties, whereas perceptions of safety, convenience/acceptability and costs did not. Physicians generally agreed on the barriers to opioid prescribing, with fear of addiction and drug abuse being the most important. Across specialties, physicians reported decreased opioid prescribing for OA, irrespective of OA severity, and in most cases attributed changes in prescribing to the CDC guideline. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Migraine is a highly prevalent neurological disease of varying attack frequency. Headache attacks that are accompanied by a combination of impact on daily activities, photophobia and/or nausea are most commonly migraine. The headache phase of a migraine attack has attracted more research, assessment tools and treatment goals than any other feature, characteristic, or phase of migraine. However, the migraine attack may encompass up to 4 phases: the prodrome, aura, headache phase and postdrome. There is growing recognition that the burden of migraine, including symptoms associated with the headache phase of the attack, may persist between migraine attacks, sometimes referred to as the "interictal phase." These include allodynia, hypersensitivity, photophobia, phonophobia, osmophobia, visual/vestibular disturbances and motion sickness. Subtle interictal clinical manifestations and a patient's trepidation to make plans or commitments due to the unpredictability of migraine attacks may contribute to poorer quality of life. However, there are only a few tools available to assess the interictal burden. Herein, we examine the recent advances in the recognition, description, and assessment of the interictal burden of migraine. We also highlight the value in patients feeling comfortable discussing the symptoms and overall burden of migraine when discussing migraine treatment needs with their provider. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Treatment outcomes for chronic pain can be poor in patients with depression, anxiety, or insomnia. This analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous tanezumab, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and placebo in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) and a history of these conditions using data from three phase 3 studies. Methods: A post-hoc analysis of data from two pooled placebo-controlled studies and one NSAID-controlled study of subcutaneous tanezumab. All patients had moderate to severe knee or hip OA that was inadequately controlled with standard-of-care analgesics. Efficacy outcomes were least-squares mean change from baseline to Week 16 in Western Ontario McMaster Universities OA Index (WOMAC) Pain, WOMAC Physical Function, Patient's global assessment of OA, and EQ-5D-5L scores. Results were summarized for patients with and without a history of depression, anxiety, or insomnia at baseline. Results: 1545 patients were treated in the pooled placebo-controlled studies (history of depression, 12%; anxiety, 8%; insomnia, 10%; any, 23%) and 2996 in the NSAID-controlled study (16%, 11%, 13%, 28%, respectively). In groups with positive histories, 38–80% took antidepressant or anxiolytic medications at baseline. Within treatments, largely similar improvements in efficacy outcomes were observed in patients with and without a history of depression, anxiety, or insomnia; the types of treatment-emergent adverse events were similar. Conclusions: Patients with OA and a history of depression, anxiety, or insomnia did not appear to experience reduced efficacy outcomes or an altered safety profile in response to tanezumab or NSAID treatment as compared with those without. NCT02697773; NCT02709486; NCT02528188 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]