Access to Triptans for Acute Episodic Migraine: A Qualitative Study

A qualitative evidence synthesis of patient perspectives on migraine treatment features and outcomes

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to identify migraine treatment features preferred by patients and treatment outcomes most valued by patients.

BACKGROUND

The values and preferences of people living with migraine are critical for both the choice of acute therapy and management approach of migraine.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative evidence synthesis. Two reviewers independently selected studies, appraised methodological quality, and undertook a framework synthesis. We developed summary of findings tables following the approach of Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research to assess confidence in the findings.

RESULTS

Of 1691 candidate references, we included 19 studies (21 publications) involving 459 patients. The studies mostly recruited White women from North America (11 studies) and Europe (8 studies). We identified eight themes encompassing features preferred by patients in a migraine treatment process. Themes described a treatment process that included shared decision-making, a tailored approach, trust in health-care professionals, sharing of knowledge and diversity of treatment options, a holistic approach that does not just address the headache, ease of communication especially for complex treatments, a non-undermining approach, and reciprocity with mutual respect between patient and provider. In terms of the treatment itself, seven themes emerged including patients' preferences for nonpharmacologic treatment, high effectiveness, rapidity of action, long-lasting effect, lower cost and more accessibility, self-management/self-delivery option that increases autonomy, and a mixed preference for abortive versus prophylactic treatments. The treatment outcomes that have high value to patients included maintaining or improving function; avoiding side effects, potential for addiction to medications, and pain reoccurrence; and avoiding non-headache symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, and sensitivity to light or sounds.

CONCLUSION

Patient values and preferences were individually constructed, varied widely, and could be at odds with conventional medical perspectives and evidence of treatment effects. Considering the availability of numerous treatments for acute migraine, it is necessary that decision-making incorporates patient values and preferences identified in qualitative research. The findings of this qualitative synthesis can be used to facilitate an individually tailored approach, strengthen the patient-health-care system relationship, and guide choices and decisions in the context of a clinical encounter or a clinical practice guideline.

Stakeholder point of view on prescription drug affordability - a systematic literature review and content analysis

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this research were to: 1) understand perspectives on affordability of pharmaceutical drugs from the point of view of stakeholders as reported in published peer-reviewed journals and conferences; 2) evaluate if (and how) perspectives on affordability overlapped across stakeholders.

METHODS

The systematic literature review followed Cochrane and PRISMA guidelines. Content analysis with iterative and systematic coding of text was conducted, to identify themes.

RESULTS

A total of 7,372 unique citations were eligible, and 126 articles included for final synthesis. For patients, 6 core themes emerged: financial barriers, adherence, access, patient-provider communication, financial distress, and factors that impact affordability. For payers, 5 core themes: financing schemes, cost-effectiveness, budget impact, private vs. public preferences, and ethics. For providers, 3 themes: patient-provider communication, physician prescribing behavior, and finding alternatives to support patient access. For policymakers, 2 themes: measuring affordability and the role of government. Limited articles representing the manufacturer perspective were identified. Perspectives of decision makers (payers, policymakers) did not overlap with those affected by affordability (patients, providers).

CONCLUSIONS

This research highlights the multi-dimensionality of drug "affordability." Multiple factors beyond cost influence patient affordability implying interventions can help alleviate affordability issues for some patients. The lack of overlap highlights potential hazards that decisions related to out-of-pocket spending, insurance coverage, reimbursement, and rationing occur without explicitly considering patient and provider perspectives.

Access to Migraine Treatments in Ontario, Canada: A Review of the Ontario Drug Benefit Program

BACKGROUND

This paper provides a critical review of the decision-making process of the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MOHLTC) regarding which migraine treatment drugs will be covered under the Ontario Drug Benefit Formulary (ODB).

MAIN TEXT

Under MOHLTC policy, triptans and OnabotulinumtoxinA are available to patients only through the Exceptional Access Program (EAP). This policy, and justifications for it, are examined with reference to clinical guidelines, patient experiences, and health policy literature. The contexts and consequences of compromised access are outlined. Improvements in access to these treatments are suggested by highlighting how a country with similar healthcare infrastructure - Australia - employs policies that more adequately meet the needs of migraine patients as they secure treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite clinically significant gains in the discovery of safe and effective migraine-specific treatments the ODB thus far has failed to align its practice with current clinical recommendations. This forces patients to rely heavily on medication that, while still effective for some, is potentially suboptimal. This review concludes it is prudent, at minimum, to follow clinical recommendations that advocate for the removal of triptans from EAP and recategorize them as Limited Use drugs. Ideally, moving them to a general benefit would further remove the barriers experienced by patients attempting to access this treatment.

CBT for Pediatric Migraine: A Qualitative Study of Patient and Parent Experience

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to determine which cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT-HA) treatment components pediatric headache patient stakeholders would report to be most helpful and essential to reducing headache frequency and related disability to develop a streamlined, less burdensome treatment package that would be more accessible to patients and families.

BACKGROUND

Pediatric migraine is a prevalent and disabling condition. CBT-HA has been shown to reduce headache frequency and related disability, but may not be readily available or accepted by many migraine sufferers due to treatment burden entailed. Research is needed to determine systematic ways of reducing barriers to CBT-HA.

METHODS

Qualitative interviews were conducted with 10 patients and 9 of their parents who had undergone CBT-HA. Interviews were analyzed using an inductive thematic analysis approach based upon modified grounded theory. Patients were 13-17.5 years of age (M = 15.4, SD = 1.63) and had undergone CBT-HA ∼1-2 years prior to participating in the study.

RESULTS

Overall, patients and their parents reported that CBT-HA was helpful in reducing headache frequency and related disability. Although patients provided mixed reports on the effectiveness of different CBT-HA skills, the majority of patients indicated that the mind and body relaxation skills of CBT-HA (deep breathing, progressive muscle relaxation, and activity pacing in particular) were the most helpful and most frequently used skills. Patients and parents also generally reported that treatment was easy to learn, and noted at least some aspect of treatment was enjoyable.

CONCLUSIONS

Results from these qualitative interviews indicate that mind and body CBT-HA relaxation skills emerged as popular and effective based on patient and parent report. Future research examining the effectiveness of streamlined pediatric migraine nonpharmacological interventions should include these patient-preferred skills.

Meta-Synthesis on Migraine Management

BACKGROUND

Migraine is one of the top 10 most disabling conditions among adults worldwide. Most migraine research is quantitative and indicates concerns about medication adherence, stigma, and more. Qualitative studies might reveal an improved understanding of migraine patients' perspectives regarding migraine treatment.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to synthesize the qualitative research on migraine patients' perspectives regarding migraine treatment to (a) identify common patterns across various types of migraine treatment studies and (b) inform future research.

METHODS

A systematic search for qualitative studies in the HA (HA) literature was conducted in Medline (PubMed), PsycINFO, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Joanna Briggs Institute EBP Database, and The Cochrane Library. Search terms (subject headings and keywords) were HA, HA disorders, migraine, qualitative studies, and qualitative research. Qualitative studies were systematically identified by using published qualitative search filters recommended by The InterTASC Information Specialists' Sub-Group (ISSG). The search was limited to English only, peer reviewed publications, and studies published between 1996 and 2016. For screening, additional inclusion criteria were (1) adult migraine patients; (2) must mention treatment in the title or study design of the abstract. Ten studies met the inclusion criteria. The Critical Appraisal Skills Program tool was applied to appraise study quality. Thematic analysis produced the codes and themes. Two authors read articles separately and individually created codes. Code lists were synthesized and themes emerged iteratively from the process.

RESULTS

Study sample sizes ranged from 10 to 33 participants, with our findings representing 161 participants. Data were collected either using interviews or focus groups. The more common methodologies were grounded theory and phenomenology. Few (3) studies described the number of headache (HA) days for inclusion in the study. Eight out of 10 used International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD) criteria. Our synthesis produced five major themes. The first theme was "Migraine patients' difficulties with health care utilization," and it included issues surrounding the cost of migraine treatment (seeing providers and prescription medications). The second theme was "Migraine patients' perceived relationships with their providers," which included the role and relationship with the provider, as well as trust in the provider and the providers' knowledge in managing HAs. The third theme was "Thoughts about the various migraine treatments." It was based on patients' comments indicating an aversion to prescription medications, the use of non-pharmacological interventions for treatment, behavioral modification as a form of treatment, and the need for additional treatment options. The fourth and fifth themes were "Understanding diagnosis/triggers" and "Societal implications," respectively. The latter theme included feelings of not being taken seriously and issues surrounding quality of life.

DISCUSSION

The metasynthesis revealed several key commonalities regarding patients' perspectives on migraine treatment and identified new areas for research using a qualitative approach. Researchers conducting qualitative research with patients experiencing migraines might consider using and reporting more of the inclusion and exclusion criteria commonly used in migraine research, for example, reporting whether the ICHD criteria were used and the number of HA days for patients to be in a study. Future studies might be done to determine how the role of allied health care providers, for example, pharmacists, physical therapists, and psychologists, might be expanded to help with migraine treatment and ultimately to improve patient outcomes.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation for the treatment of chronic cluster headache

Background

Cluster headache (CH) is a debilitating condition that is generally associated with substantial health care costs. Few therapies are approved for abortive or prophylactic treatment. Results from the prospective, randomised, open-label PREVA study suggested that adjunctive treatment with a novel non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) device led to decreased attack frequency and abortive medication use in patients with chronic CH (cCH). Herein, we evaluate whether nVNS is cost-effective compared with the current standard of care (SoC) for cCH.

Methods

A pharmacoeconomic model from the German statutory health insurance perspective was developed to estimate the 1-year cost-effectiveness of nVNS + SoC (versus SoC alone) using data from PREVA. Short-term treatment response data were taken from the clinical trial; longer-term response was modelled under scenarios of response maintenance, constant rate of response loss, and diminishing rate of response loss. Health-related quality of life was estimated by modelling EQ-5D™ data from PREVA; benefits were defined as quality-adjusted life-years (QALY). Abortive medication use data from PREVA, along with costs for the nVNS device and abortive therapies (i.e. intranasal zolmitriptan, subcutaneous sumatriptan, and inhaled oxygen), were used to assess health care costs in the German setting.

Results

The analysis resulted in mean expected yearly costs of €7096.69 for nVNS + SoC and €7511.35 for SoC alone and mean QALY of 0.607 for nVNS + SoC and 0.522 for SoC alone, suggesting that nVNS generates greater health benefits for lower overall cost. Abortive medication costs were 23 % lower with nVNS + SoC than with SoC alone. In the alternative scenarios (i.e. constant rate of response loss and diminishing rate of response loss), nVNS + SoC was more effective and cost saving than SoC alone.

Conclusions

In all scenarios modelled from a German perspective, nVNS was cost-effective compared with current SoC, which suggests that adjunctive nVNS therapy provides economic benefits in the treatment of cCH. Notably, the current analysis included only costs associated with abortive treatments. Treatment with nVNS will likely promote further economic benefit when other potential sources of cost savings (e.g. reduced frequency of clinic visits) are considered.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT01701245, 03OCT2012.