Burden of Illness Among People with Migraine and ≥ 4 Monthly Headache Days While Using Acute and/or Preventive Prescription Medications for Migraine
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Migraine is a chronic disease that reduces health-related quality of life. Little is known about the burden of migraine in individuals who are potential candidates for preventive treatment with ≥ 4 monthly headache days currently using migraine medications. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the burden of migraine among patients reporting ≥ 4 monthly headache days while taking acute and/or preventive migraine medications. METHODS: In this retrospective, cross-sectional study, data from the 2016 U.S. National Health and Wellness Survey (N = 97,503) compared the burden of migraine among individuals self-reporting a diagnosis of migraine by a health care professional and ≥ 4 monthly headache days while using acute and/or preventive prescription migraine medications to matched nonmigraine controls. Propensity score matching across different variables (e.g., age, gender, and body mass index) was used to identify matched controls from respondents who did not self-report a diagnosis of migraine. Migraine-associated burden was measured by impairment in work productivity and daily activities (Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire), all-cause health care resource utilization (HRU), and all-cause direct and indirect costs. RESULTS: This analysis included 197 treated migraine patients with ≥ 4 monthly headache days and 197 matched nonmigraine controls. Greater proportions of treated migraine patients reported comorbid depression (58.4% vs. 27.9%, P < 0.001) or generalized anxiety disorder (15.2% vs. 8.6%, P = 0.043) and were on long-term disability (13.7% vs. 5.6%, P = 0.003). Absenteeism (11.8% vs. 6.3%, P = 0.030); presenteeism (36.0% vs. 17.5%, P < 0.001); overall work impairment (41.0% vs. 20.9%, P < 0.001); and activity impairment (45.4% vs. 25.4%, P < 0.001) were greater in treated migraine patients versus nonmigraine controls. Treated migraine patients had higher all-cause HRU and higher all-cause direct ($24,499.90 vs. $15,318.91, P = 0.013) and indirect ($14,770.57 vs. $5,764.93, P < 0.001) costs than nonmigraine controls. CONCLUSIONS: Treated migraine patients with ≥ 4 monthly headache days reported significantly reduced work productivity and increased all-cause HRU and cost despite migraine treatment compared with nonmigraine controls. These findings highlight unmet needs in the treatment and management of migraine. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Teva Pharmaceutical Industries (Petach Tikva, Israel). Cohen is an employee of Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D (USA); Bell was an employee of Teva Pharmaceutical Industries at the time of this study and holds stock/stock options in Teva Pharmaceutical Industries. Lee is an employee of Kantar, which received funding from Teva Pharmaceutical Industries for data analyses performed for this study. Buse has served as a paid consultant to Amgen/Novartis, Allergan, Biohaven, Eli Lilly, Promius/Dr. Reddy’s, and Teva Pharmaceuticals, but she was not compensated financially for work on this study. Yugrakh has received research support from Teva Pharmaceuticals and Cefaly Technology. Lipton has received research support from the NIH, the Migraine Research Foundation, and the National Headache Foundation; holds stock options in eNeura Therapeutics and Biohaven Holdings; serves as consultant, advisory board member, or has received honoraria from the American Academy of Neurology, Alder, Allergan, the American Headache Society, Amgen, Autonomic Technologies, Avanir, Biohaven, BioVision, Boston Scientific, Dr. Reddy’s, electroCore, Eli Lilly, eNeura Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Pernix, Pfizer, Supernus, Teva, Trigemina, Vector, and Vedanta. This study was presented as a poster at the American Academy of Neurology 2018 Annual Meeting, April 21-27, 2018, in Los Angeles, CA; PAINWeek 2018, September 4-8, 2018, in Las Vegas, NV; and the 2017 European Headache Federation (EHF) Congress, December 1-3, 2017, in Rome, Italy.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Pharmacological migraine treatments frequently have limitations such as side effects, insufficient effectiveness, or high cost.
“Pharmacological treatments are often limited by side effects, lack of efficacy, and/or costs.3–5”
From Mechanisms of mindfulness in patients with migraine: Results of a qualitative study. (2023) · cites this paper as [5]
The Discussion says patients continued to experience substantial migraine burden while taking prescription medication and suggests that effective, well-tolerated drug options were limited. This supports concerns about effectiveness and tolerability, though the paper does not establish how frequently side effects limit treatment. Its cost findings concern the burden of migraine, not the price of pharmacological treatments, so the treatment-cost part is unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.87)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 47 · Cited by 50
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- [15]15. Gooch CL, Pracht E, Borenstein AR. The burden of neurological disease in the United States: a summary report and call to action. Ann Neurol. 2017;81(4):479-84.
- [53]53. Parsons LS. Performing a 1: N case-control match on propensity score. Paper presented at: Proceedings of the 29th Annual SAS Users Group International Conference; May 9-12, 2004; Montreal, Canada.
- Authors
- Buse, D. C., Yugrakh, M. S., Lee, L. K., Bell, J., Cohen, J. M., & Lipton, R. B.
- Affiliations
- Albert Einstein College of Medicine (US)
- Columbia University Irving Medical Center (US)
- Kantar, San Mateo, California.
- Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
- Venue
- Journal of Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy
- Publisher
- Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy
- Published
- 2020-10
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1334-1343
- ISSN
- 2376-0540 (ISSN-L)
- 2376-1032
- PMC
- PMC10391061
- OpenAlex
- W3042736967
- Cited by
- 50
- References
- 47
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2
- FWCI
- 4.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Teva Pharmaceutical Industries
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Migraine and Headache Studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
- Keywords
- migraine, disease burden, monthly headache days, acute migraine treatment, labor productivity, activity impairment, healthcare resource utilization, health care costs, depression, generalized anxiety disorder, long-term disability, absenteeism, presenteeism, comorbidities, National Health and Wellness Survey, health-related quality of life
- MeSH terms
- Absenteeism, Presenteeism, Adult, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Health Surveys, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Migraine Disorders, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Quality of Life, Retrospective Studies, Time Factors, Health Care Costs, Cost of Illness, Prescription Drugs
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review