Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

BackgroundMigraine prevention guidelines recommend oral prophylactic medications for patients with frequent headache. This study examined oral migraine preventive medication (OMPM) treatment patterns by evaluating medication persistence, switching, and re-initiation in patients with chronic migraine (CM).MethodsA retrospective US claims analysis (Truven Health MarketScan® Databases) evaluated patients ≥18 years old diagnosed with CM who had initiated an OMPM between 1 January, 2008 and 30 September, 2012. Treatment persistence was measured at six and 12 months’ follow-up. Time-to-discontinuation was assessed for each OMPM and compared using Cox regression models. Among those who discontinued, the proportion that switched OMPMs within 60 days or re-initiated treatment between 61 to 365 days, and their associated persistence rates, were also assessed.ResultsA total of 8707 patients met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Persistence to the initial OMPM was 25% at six months and 14% at 12 months. Based on Kaplan-Meier curves, a sharp decline of patients discontinuing was observed by 30 days, and approximately half discontinued by 60 days. Similar trends in time-to-discontinuation were seen following the second or third OMPM. Amitriptyline, gabapentin, and nortriptyline had significantly higher likelihood of non-persistence compared with topiramate. Among patients who discontinued, 23% switched to another prophylactic and 41% re-initiated therapy within one year. Among patients who switched, persistence was between 10 to 13% and among re-initiated patients, persistence was between 4 to 8% at 12 months.ConclusionsPersistence to OMPMs is poor at six months and declines further by 12 months. Switching between OMPMs is common, but results indicate that persistence worsens as patients cycle through various OMPMs.

Adherence to OMPMs is low among the US CM population at six months and worsens by 12 months.

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), through its Evidencebased Practice Centers (EPCs), sponsors the development of evidence reports and technology assessments to assist publicand private-sector organizations in their efforts to improve the quality of health care in the United States. The reports and assessments provide organizations with comprehensive, science-based information on common, costly medical conditions and new health care technologies. The EPCs systematically review the relevant scientific literature on topics assigned to them by AHRQ and conduct additional analyses when appropriate prior to developing their reports and assessments. AHRQ expects that the EPC evidence reports and technology assessments will inform individual health plans, providers, and purchasers as well as the health care system as a whole by providing important information to help improve health care quality. The full report and this summary are available at www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq. gov/reports/final.cfm. d. In patients with chronic pain, what is the comparative effectiveness of opioids plus nonopioid interventions (pharmacological or nonpharmacological) versus opioids or nonopioid interventions alone on outcomes related to pain, function, quality of life, and doses of opioids used? Key Question 2. Harms and Adverse Events a. In patients with chronic pain, what are the risks of opioids versus placebo or no opioid on: (1) opioid abuse, addiction, and related outcomes; (2) overdose; and (3) other harms, including gastrointestinal-related harms, falls, fractures, motor vehicle accidents, endocrinological harms, infections, cardiovascular 3 events, cognitive harms, and psychological harms (e.g., depression)? b. How do harms vary depending on: (1) the specific type or cause of pain (e.g., neuropathic, musculoskeletal [including back pain], fibromyalgia, sickle cell disease, inflammatory pain, headache disorders); (2) patient demographics; (3) patient comorbidities (including past or current substance use disorder or at high risk for addiction); (4) the dose of opioids used? Key Question 3. Dosing Strategies