ArticleClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR2021
Patient-Reported Outcomes for Migraine in the US and Europe: Burden Associated with Multiple Preventive Treatment Failures.
Article in ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of eptinezumab on work productivity beyond reductions in monthly migraine days: post hoc analysis of the DELIVER trial.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2024Trial
- Validation and meaningful within-patient change in work productivity and activity impairment questionnaire (WPAI) for episodic or chronic migraine.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2023Trial
- Effects of eptinezumab on self-reported work productivity in adults with migraine and prior preventive treatment failure in the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled DELIVER study.The journal of headache and pain · 2022Trial
- Translation and validation of the Migraine Interictal Burden Scale (MIBS-4) in an Italian clinical cohort.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026Article
- Intranasal hybrid nanoparticles encapsulating rizatriptan enhance antimigraine efficacy in an optogenetic spreading depression model.International journal of pharmaceutics · 2026Article
- An economic evaluation of eptinezumab for the preventive treatment of migraine in the UK, with consideration for natural history and work productivity.The journal of headache and pain · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) among patients with migraine, including those who were preventive-naïve and preventive-treated.
methodsThis was a point-in-time, real-world study of patients with migraine in the US and EU5 (France, Germany, Spain, Italy, and UK) and their physicians using data from the Adelphi Migraine Disease Specific Programme (DSP™). Physicians completed patient record forms (PRFs) for the next nine consulting patients with migraine plus a tenth patient, who did not need to be consecutive, for whom prior preventive migraine treatments had failed at least once, in order to achieve oversampling of such patients. Patients were given self-completion (PSC) forms that included the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire v2.1 (MSQ), Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS), and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) questionnaire. Populations of interest included preventive-naïve and preventive-treated patients defined by the number of treatment lines (1-2 or 3+ preventive regimens). Continuous variables were compared using
resultsDuring August-December 2017, 615 physicians (359 PCPs, 256 neurologists) completed PRFs for 5785 patients (71% female; mean age 40 (±14) years; 65% in full- or part-time employment). Of these, 2798 completed a PSC (preventive-naïve/1-2/3+ preventive lines, n=1707/1034/57). Preventive-treated patients had a greater patient-reported burden across multiple measures versus preventive-naïve patients. Preventive-treated patients had lower MSQ scores indicating greater functional impairment, higher MIDAS scores indicating greater migraine-associated disability, and higher WPAI scores indicating greater overall work and activity impairment than preventive-naïve patients. The magnitude of difference was greatest for the 3+ preventive-treatments cohort. Patterns were similar in the US and EU5.
conclusionAmong patients with migraine who are preventive-treated, including those with multiple lines of therapy, there remain considerable unmet needs in terms of restoring patient function.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.