Literature DB >> 17445103

Patients' preference for migraine preventive therapy.

Mario Fernando Prieto Peres1, Stephen Silberstein, Frederico Moreira, Felipe Corchs, Domingos Savio Vieira, Nina Abraham, Cheryl Gebeline-Myers.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Preventive treatment is an important part of migraine therapy. When prescribing medication, physicians should understand patients' treatment preferences and select drugs that most closely meet their patients' needs. Understanding the factors that influence patients' preference increases physicians' ability to select appropriate migraine therapy. However, unlike acute migraine treatment, patients' preferences for migraine preventive treatment have never been studied.
METHODS: We enrolled 250 patients who attended the Jefferson Headache Center and Sao Paulo Headache Center and had a primary headache diagnosis. Patients' age, gender, body mass index (BMI), headache diagnosis, headache frequency, duration, and intensity, headache disability (by MIDAS), and current preventive treatments were ascertained. Patients were asked to rate 7 aspects of headache prevention (efficacy, speed of onset, out-of-pocket expenses, adverse events, formulation of therapy, type of treatment, and frequency of dosing) in order of importance (1-7). Each patient also evaluated 12 different clinical scenarios, each one containing a simulation of 2 hypothetical headache preventive treatments, wherein patients could choose Product A, Product B, or neither. Patients were informed of each product's efficacy data (50%, 75%, or 100% headache elimination), adverse event profile (weight gain, concentration difficulty, and/or fatigue), and dosing frequency (once every 3 months, once per day, or twice per day).
RESULTS: Most patients were Caucasian. Mean BMI was 26.55 +/- 5.34, range (17-45). Mean history of headache was 20.93 years. Fifty patients (40%) had 45 or more headache days in the past 3 months. Mean headache intensity score (0-10 scale) was 5.7 +/- 1.8. Patients were on various preventive treatments, including beta-blockers (48 [41%]), calcium-channel blockers (19 [16%]), antidepressants (52 [44%]), antiepileptics (46 [39%]), neurotoxins (16 [14%]), vitamins/herbal therapies (28 [24%]), and nonmedicinal therapy (38 [32%]). Of the 7 aspects of migraine prevention that patients were asked to rate, 72% rated effectiveness the most important aspect. Twelve percent rated speed of onset most important, 6% rated absence of adverse events most important, 3% rated formulation of therapy most important, 3% rated out-of-pocket expenses most important, and 2% rated type of treatment (prescription/vitamin) most important. None rated frequency of dosing as the most important factor. In the area of preventive treatment scenarios, patients were more likely to choose treatments with higher efficacy rates, fewer adverse events and less frequent dosing schedule. Patients indicated that they preferred the treatment options with higher efficacy rates even if side effects were present and a more frequent dosing schedule was necessary.
CONCLUSION: Patients' preference regarding migraine prevention is very important in headache management. Patients rated efficacy the most important aspect in preventive therapy and preferred treatment options with higher efficacy rates. Future studies are needed for a better understanding of patients' preference for migraine prevention.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17445103     DOI: 10.1111/j.1526-4610.2007.00757.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Headache        ISSN: 0017-8748            Impact factor:   5.887


  35 in total

1.  Cost effectiveness of pharmacotherapy for the prevention of migraine: a Markov model application.

Authors:  Junhua Yu; Kenneth J Smith; Diana I Brixner
Journal:  CNS Drugs       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 5.749

Review 2.  CGRP Monoclonal Antibodies for the Preventative Treatment of Migraine.

Authors:  Heike Israel; Lars Neeb; Uwe Reuter
Journal:  Curr Pain Headache Rep       Date:  2018-04-06

3.  Preferences related to attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and its treatment.

Authors:  Kate Van Brunt; Louis S Matza; Peter M Classi; Joseph A Johnston
Journal:  Patient Prefer Adherence       Date:  2011-01-17       Impact factor: 2.711

Review 4.  What Constitutes an "Adequate" Trial in Migraine Prevention?

Authors:  Jonathan H Smith; Todd J Schwedt
Journal:  Curr Pain Headache Rep       Date:  2015-11

Review 5.  Key points in migraine prophylaxis: patient perspective.

Authors:  Domenico D'Amico; S J Tepper
Journal:  Neurol Sci       Date:  2009-05       Impact factor: 3.307

Review 6.  Are the current IHS guidelines for migraine drug trials being followed?

Authors:  Anders Hougaard; Peer Tfelt-Hansen
Journal:  J Headache Pain       Date:  2010-10-08       Impact factor: 7.277

7.  Preventive agents for migraine: focus on the antiepileptic drugs.

Authors:  R Shahien; K Beiruti
Journal:  J Cent Nerv Syst Dis       Date:  2012-02-26

8.  Prophylactic treatment of migraine; the patient's view, a qualitative study.

Authors:  Frans Dekker; Arie Knuistingh Neven; Boukje Andriesse; David Kernick; Ria Reis; Michel D Ferrari; Willem J J Assendelft
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2012-03-09       Impact factor: 2.497

9.  Will (or can) people pay for headache care in a poor country?

Authors:  Christian Lampl; Timothy Joseph Steiner; Thomas Mueller; Eka Mirvelashvili; Mamuka Djibuti; Maka Kukava; Anna Dzagnidze; Rigmor Jensen; Lars Jacob Stovner; Zaza Katsarava
Journal:  J Headache Pain       Date:  2011-11-02       Impact factor: 7.277

10.  Investigating Patients' Preferences to Inform Drug Development Decisions: Novel Insights from a Discrete Choice Experiment in Migraine.

Authors:  Aleksandra Torbica; Carla Rognoni; Rosanna Tarricone
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-05-05       Impact factor: 3.390

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.