Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34173301›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of pain (London, England)2021

Relevant factors for neurologists to define effectiveness of migraine preventive drugs and take decisions on treatment. My-LIFE European Delphi survey.

Patricia Pozo-Rosich, Raquel Gil-Gouveia, Anne Donnet, Anne-Christine Poole, Astrid Gendolla, Shazia Afridi, Rainel Sanchez-De la Rosa, Gisela M Terwindt, Cristina Tassorelli

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of pain (London, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Patricia Pozo-RosichHeadache Unit, Neurology Department, Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-0796-4702
Raquel Gil-GouveiaHeadache Center, Neurology Department, Hospital da Luz, Lisboa, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-4256-4256
Anne DonnetPain Department, Timone Hospital, Marseille, France.ORCID 0000-0003-0034-5247
Anne-Christine PoolePrivate Practice: Oslo Headache Centre, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-2872-4110
Astrid GendollaPrivate Practice: Essen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-9884-3158
Shazia AfridiHeadache Service, Department of Neurology, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Trust, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8487-5677
Rainel Sanchez-De la RosaRegion Europe Medical Department, Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-7134-1203
Gisela M TerwindtDepartment of Neurology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-3140-6882
Cristina TassorelliHeadache Science Center, IRCCS Mondino Foundation, Pavia, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-1513-2113

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical guidelines agree that preventive treatment should be considered in patients with uncontrolled migraine despite acute medications or patients with ≥4 migraine days per month. However, the criteria to define the effectiveness of treatment and the factors that inform the decision to (dis)continue it are not clearly defined in clinical practice.

methodsOverall, 148 healthcare practitioners from five European countries completed a two-wave questionnaire. The Steering Committee defined a simulated set of 108 migraine patient profiles based on the combination of five factors (frequency of the attacks, intensity of the attacks, use of acute migraine medications, patient perception and presence/absence of tolerable side effects). These profiles were used in a Delphi survey among European neurologists to identify the criteria that should be used to decide treatment response and continuation using a conjoint analysis approach.

resultsConsensus was reached for 82/108 (76%) of profiles regarding treatment response, and for 86/108 (80%) regarding treatment continuation. Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that a ≥50% reduction in the use of acute migraine medications and positive patient's perception of treatment were the most important factors that lead to the decision of continuing (combined factors, OR = 18.3, 95% CI 13.4-25.05).

conclusionsThis survey identifies two relevant outcome measures: one objective (use of acute migraine treatment medications) and one subjective (positive patient perception) that guide the clinician decision to continue preventive treatment in migraine patients. SIGNIFICANCE: In clinical practice, criteria to define the effectiveness of migraine preventive treatment and factors that guide treatment stop or continuation are not clearly defined. In this simulated clinical setting study, a reduction in the use of acute migraine medications was the factor associated with preventive treatment effectiveness definition. This study also revealed that factors strongly associated with the decision of treatment continuation in real life are the acute migraine medications use and a positive patient's perception of treatment effectiveness.

Indexed as

Migraine DisordersPharmaceutical PreparationsHumansNeurologistsSurveys and QuestionnairesTreatment OutcomePharmaceutical Preparations

Identifiers

PMID34173301
PMCPMC8596543

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.