Affordable Access

Access to the full text

Patients and general practitioners assessment of the main outcomes employed in the acute and preventive treatment of migraine: a cross sectional study

Authors
  • Trigo-López, Javier1
  • Guerrero-Peral, Ángel Luis1, 2, 3
  • Sierra, Álvaro1
  • Martínez-Pías, Enrique1
  • Gutiérrez-Sánchez, María1
  • Huzzey, Elizabeth4, 5
  • García-Azorín, David1
  • 1 Hospital Clínico Universitario de Valladolid, Avenida Ramón y Cajal 3, Valladolid, 47005, Spain , Valladolid (Spain)
  • 2 Institute for Biomedical Research of Salamanca (IBSAL), Salamanca, Spain , Salamanca (Spain)
  • 3 University of Valladolid, Valladolid, Spain , Valladolid (Spain)
  • 4 OPHM, London, UK , London (United Kingdom)
  • 5 University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark , Copenhagen (Denmark)
Type
Published Article
Journal
BMC Neurology
Publisher
Springer (Biomed Central Ltd.)
Publication Date
Jul 15, 2021
Volume
21
Issue
1
Identifiers
DOI: 10.1186/s12883-021-02220-w
Source
Springer Nature
Keywords
Disciplines
  • Research
License
Green

Abstract

BackgroundWe aim to describe and compare patients and general practitioners’ opinions about the different variables related to acute and preventive treatment for migraine.Patients and methodsAn observational descriptive study was performed. Patients with episodic migraine and general practitioners, from our healthcare area, were invited to answer a survey about the different variables related to migraine treatment. They were asked for their opinions on the different variables, and to consider the desired efficacy in percentage terms and the desired action times of treatment.ResultsFifty-five patients and fifty-five general practitioners were selected. Effectiveness was considered the most important variable for symptomatic and preventive treatment. Cost was considered the least important variable. Patients desired percentage of efficacy was 84.0% (±16.7%) for symptomatic treatment and 79.9% (±17.1%) for preventive treatment. General practitioners desired percentage of efficacy was 75.0% (±14.0) for symptomatic treatment and 70.4% (±14.3) for preventive treatment. For symptomatic treatment the desired action time for pain cessation was selected as 27.5 min (±13.8) for patients and 24.0 min (±18.3) for GPs. For preventive treatment the desired action time for effect was 7.1 days (±4.5) for patients and 13.9 days (±8.9) for general practitioners.ConclusionThe most important endpoints were, for acute: effectiveness, a short action time and a persistent effect. For prophylactic: effectiveness, sustained effect and tolerability. Both patients and general practitioners agreed on the most and least preferred endpoints. Desired percentage of efficacy was above 75% for both symptomatic and preventive treatment; and the desired action time was below 30 min for acute treatment and 2 weeks for preventive treatment.

Report this publication

Statistics

Seen <100 times