Incidence and determinants of migraine prophylactic medication in the Netherlands

Triptan use in Australia 1997-2015: A pharmacoepidemiological study

OBJECTIVE

This study examined the use of triptan derivatives in Australia between 1997 and 2015, based on a national drug reimbursement database, and compared patterns of use with available international data.

METHODS

We obtained publically available data on the number of prescriptions for triptans marketed in Australia (sumatriptan, eletriptan, rizatriptan, zolmitriptan, naratriptan). Dispensed use was measured as defined daily dose (DDD per 1000 population per day) for Australia's concessional beneficiaries (low-income earners, people with disabilities, and seniors).

RESULTS

Total triptan use increased at an average annual rate of 112% over the 18-year period. Sumatriptan was the preferred triptan throughout (average annual increase 45%). Zolmitriptan and naratriptan use peaked in 2004, then decreased. Rizatriptan and eletriptan became available in 2010. There were 3.2-fold and 5.9-fold annual increases in their use from 2011 to 2105. There was some evidence suggesting that pattern of triptan use in concessional beneficiaries probably reflected pattern of overall triptan use in Australia.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of triptan derivatives in Australia per head of population for treating migraine attacks continued to increase over the 18-year period studied, with use of recently introduced derivatives more than substituting for decreased use of older triptans. This suggests that the available treatments of migraine attacks had achieved what were considered less than adequate therapeutic outcomes.

Clinical Features and Pharmacological Treatment of Migraine Patients Referred to Headache Specialists in Canada

We set out to examine selected clinical characteristics of migraine patients referred to neurologists specializing in headache in Canada, and to document their pharmacological therapy both before and after consultation with the neurologist. Demographic, clinical and pharmacotherapy data were collected at the time of consultation for 606 patients referred to five headache clinics and who were given a migraine diagnosis by the neurologist. Data were analysed as part of the Canadian Headache Outpatient Registry and Database (CHORD) Project. The mean age of the migraine patients was 39.7 years; and 82.5% were female. The majority of patients suffered severe impact from their headaches. Prior to consultation, 48.7% were taking a triptan; after consultation, 97.2% were on a triptan. Before consultation, 30.9% were on a prophylactic drug; after consultation, 70.4% were. 20.8% of patients were medication overusers. Of these medication overusers, 42.4% were overusing an opiate, usually in combination with other analgesics; 21.6% were overusing a triptan. Medication changes made by the neurologists at consultation included a large increase in the use of both triptans and prophylactic medications. Medication overuse, particularly opiate overuse, remains a significant problem in patients with migraine in Canada.

Preventive treatment for migraine in primary care, a population-based study in the Netherlands

Background

Preventive treatment of migraine contributes to reducing the impact of migraine but its extent of use in routine care is unknown.

Objective

The objective of this article is to assess current use, previous use, duration and course of preventive treatment of migraine in Dutch general practice.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study, for the period between 1997 and 2007, in the Interdisciplinary Processing of Clinical Information (IPCI) database, a GP research database in the Netherlands (source population of more than half a million subjects). All prevalent and incident migraine patients ( N = 7367) were included.

Results

About 13% of all migraine patients currently use preventive therapy and almost half of migraine patients have prior use. Of those starting with preventive treatment, 56% (95% CI: 54.3–64.7) still used it after nine months. There was a long delay between migraine diagnosis and preventive treatment start. Forty-four percent (95% CI 43.0–45.7) started preventive therapy in the study period.

Conclusion

This large primary-care database study shows that a limited number of patients are current users of preventive treatment, but many patients have prior use. After diagnosis there is often an extended time before preventive treatment is applied. Also there is often only one attempt. The continuation in time seems appropriate. Preventive therapy in migraine still deserves focus.

How general practitioners treat migraine patients—evaluation of a headache guideline

Aim: The aim of the study was to evaluate the pharmacological treatment of migraine patients by general practitioners before referral to a neurologist. First, was the pharmacological treatment in accordance with the Dutch College of General Practitioners headache guideline? Second, which migraine characteristics were associated with receiving migraine-specific medication?

Methods: Migraine patients (age ≥18 years) who visited the neurology outpatient clinic for the first time were included. Migraine characteristics and pharmacological status were collected retrospectively for each patient from the general practitioner’s referral letter, hospital record and a headache characteristics questionnaire.

Results: A total of 420 migraine patients were included. Only 18.3% of the patients with two or more migraine attacks per month were using prophylactic medication. Furthermore, only 11.7% of patients with symptoms of nausea and/or vomiting were using anti-emetic medication. More than half of patients (51.7%) were using triptans and were likely to have typical migraine symptoms and a long history of migraine.

Conclusions: Migraine prophylactic medication and anti-emetics are underutilized in the primary care setting for migraine patients in the Netherlands, when compared to the general practitioners guideline. It is important to enhance the knowledge of general practitioners regarding the diagnosis of migraine, and to increase awareness of the headache guideline.

Prophylactic treatment of migraine by GPs: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Despite the considerable impact of migraine, the use of preventive medication in primary care is limited. Only about 5% of migraine patients who qualify for prophylaxis actually receive it, and adherence is far from optimal.

AIM

To explore the opinions of GPs regarding preventive medication for migraine.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A qualitative focus group study in Dutch general practice.

METHOD

Four focus groups (six GPs each) were formed. GPs were purposively sampled to acquire a range of participants, reflecting the more general GP population.

RESULTS

GPs perceived patients' concerns about the impact of migraine and the potential benefits of prophylaxis. However, some were hesitant to start prescribing prophylaxis due to doubts about effectiveness, potential side effects, and the risk of developing drug dependency. GPs' decisions were often based on considerations other than those presented in national guidelines, for example, the patient's need to control their own problem. Many GPs placed responsibility for initiating prophylaxis with the patient.

CONCLUSION

Various considerations hamper GPs from managing migraine with preventive medication, and various patient-related concerns cause GPs to deviate from national headache guidelines.

Acceptance or rejection of prophylactic medicine in patients with migraine: a cross-sectional study

Most patients with two or more migraine attacks per month do not use prophylactic medication. The aim of this study is to investigate how many patients use prophylaxis or would like to use them, and which aspects of migraine contribute to the choice to use prophylactic treatment. In a cross-sectional survey in three general practices, patients were selected who were diagnosed with migraine or had prescriptions for migraine medication. A questionnaire was sent to 283 patients and completed by 166 patients, of whom 15 were excluded. A total of 129 females and 22 males were included (median age 41 years). Most patients had two or more attacks per month (66.2%). Fifty-five per cent of patients with two or more attacks per month wanted to use prophylaxis; only 8% actually used this treatment. To get more insight into the ideas for or against prophylactic use, qualitative research is indicated.

Incidence and determinants of antidepressant drug use in migraine patients

The purpose of this retrospective, follow-up study was to characterise the use of antidepressant medication in a defined migraine population and evaluate the determinants thereof. Data was obtained from the PHARMO-RLS prescription database. Our migraine population (2,517 people) included patients having commenced specific migraine drugs, ergotamine or sumatriptan, for the first time from January 1 1992 to December 31 1998. The corresponding date was termed the 'index date'. Non-migraine patients, those not having used any medication specific for migraine, were selected and equally matched (n=2,517). The cumulative incidence of initiating antidepressant treatment was estimated during two-year observation periods prior to and after the index date. Several demographic and comedication characteristics were assessed as potential determinants of antidepressant drug use within the migraine population. Other determinants included usage patterns ("therapeutic intensity") of ergotamine and sumatriptan, defined as the absolute number of Defined Daily Doses (DDDs) dispensed per patient during one year prior to initiation of antidepressant therapy. A total of 300 migraine patients (11.9%) and 213 non-migraine patients (8.5%) had initiated antidepressant treatment in the two-year period prior to or in the two-year period after the index date (RR adj 1.4; 95% CI 1.2-1.7). The cumulative incidence of initiation of antidepressant treatment for the migraine population was 3.0% per year prior to and 3.2% per year after the initiation of specific migraine analgesia. The concomitant use of benzodiazepines (RR adj 4.7; 95% CI 3.5-6.3), migraine prophylactic medication (RR adj 2.1; 95% CI 1.6-2.8) and heavy therapeutic intensity use of specific migraine analgesia, defined as >/=150 DDDs per year were highly predictive of antidepressant drug use within the migraine population. In conclusion, compared to the non-migraine population, the initiation of antidepressant treatment was only slightly higher in the migraine population. A number of determinants within the latter were found to be strongly associated with antidepressant drug use, the nature of which most likely reflects an increased severity of migraine whereby therapeutic needs are higher.

Migraine prophylactic medication usage patterns in The Netherlands

This study aims to investigate usage patterns of specific migraine prophylactic medications in ergotamine and triptan patients commencing this treatment for the first time during 1 January 1992 until 31 December 1998. Usage patterns of specific migraine prophylactic drugs were evaluated for each patient by accessing data from a large prescription database and were characterized as continued, switch or stop use during the patient observation period. Several patient and medication-related factors were explored in order to identify a possible relationship with the specific usage pattern defined. Approximately 75% of the study population (n = 729) had terminated (stop or switch) prophylactic treatment after 1 year. Age < 40 years (relative risk (RR) 1.9; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.2-3.2) and the concomitant use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (RR 3.2; 95% CI 1.2-5.5) or specific abortive migraine drugs resulted in a faster onset of treatment modification (switch). Overall, migraine prophylactic treatment is used for a relatively short period, probably attributable to the common limitations associated with migraine prophylaxis, such as poor compliance and/or limited therapeutic efficacy. Patterns of use can be influenced by a variety of factors, including age, type of prescriber and certain co-medication. Patient interview studies are required to clarify these issues further.