Association between TriptanUse and Cardiac Contraindications in an Insured Migraine Population

Background Safety concerns exist when using triptansto treat patients with cardiac contraindications. –Triptans cause vasoconstriction, a safety concern for migraineurswith cardiovascular (CV) disease or other cardiac risk factors. –All triptans contain contraindications in their package inserts to avoid use in patients with cardiac conditions. •Previous research indicates that clinicians are less likely to prescribe triptansin patients with CV disease or CV risk factors. Limited research has examined the proportion of migraine patients with cardiovascular disease or those individuals who were concurrently treated with triptans

Electronic Medical Records as a Research Tool: Evaluating Topiramate Use at a Headache Center.

Background.—Electronic medical records (EMRs) are used in large healthcare centers to increase efficiency and accuracy of documentation. These databases may be utilized for clinical research or to describe clinical practices such as medication usage. Methods.—We conducted a retrospective analysis of EMR data from a headache clinic to evaluate clinician prescription use and dosing patterns of topiramate. The study cohort comprised 4833 unique de-identified records, which were used to determine topiramate dose and persistence of treatment. Results.—Within the cohort, migraine was the most common headache diagnosis (n = 3753, 77.7%), followed by tension-type headache (n = 338, 7.0%) and cluster or trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias (n = 287, 5.9%). Physicians prescribed topiramate more often for subjects with migraine and idiopathic intracranial hypertension (P \u3c .0001) than for those with other conditions, and more often for subjects with coexisting conditions including obesity, bipolar disorder, and depression. The most common maintenance dose of topiramate was 100 mg/day; however, approximately 15% of subjects received either less than 100 mg/day or more than 200 mg/day. More than a third of subjects were prescribed topiramate for more than 1 year, and subjects with a diagnosis of migraine were prescribed topiramate for a longer period of time than those without migraine. Conclusions.—Findings from our study using EMR demonstrate that physicians use topiramate at many different doses and for many off-label indications. This analysis provided important insight into our patient populations and treatment patterns

Utilization of CT Scans and MRIs in an Insured Population with Migraine

Background: • Neuroimaging is a diagnostic tool that may be used to rule out a serious condition when a patient presents with head pain. It is not typically warranted for patients who have a normal neurologic exam, and may be over utilized despite established practice parameters set by the American Academy of Neurology. •A decision to use neuroimaging should consider the type of headache and presence of any clinical features that suggest a serious condition. Over-utilization of neuroimaging has cost and safety implications. The United States Headache Consortium, a panel of experts on migraine, set the guidelines for diagnosis and treatment in 2000. In alignment with these guidelines, the Migraine Quality of Care Measurement Set seeks to reveal patterns in CT and MRI utilization for migraine sufferers, which may inform future policy decisions at the health plan-level

Enhanced interpretation of newborn screening results without analyte cutoff values

A collaboration among 157 newborn screening programs in 47 countries has lead to the creation of a database of 705,333 discrete analyte concentrations from 11,462 cases affected with 57 metabolic disorders, and from 631 heterozygotes for 12 conditions. This evidence was first applied to establish disease ranges for amino acids and acylcarnitines, and clinically validate 114 cutoff target ranges. Objective: To improve quality and performance with an evidence-based approach, multivariate pattern recognition software has been developed to aid in the interpretation of complex analyte profiles. The software generates tools that convert multiple clinically significant results into a single numerical score based on overlap between normal and disease ranges, penetration within the disease range, differences between specific conditions, and weighted correction factors. Design: Eighty-five on-line tools target either a single condition or the differential diagnosis between two or more conditions. Scores are expressed as a numerical value and as the percentile rank among all cases with the condition chosen as primary target, and are compared to interpretation guidelines. Tools are updated automatically after any new data submission (2009- 2011: 5.2 new cases added per day on average). Main outcome measures: Retrospective evaluation of past cases suggest that these tools could have avoided at least half of 277 false positive outcomes caused by carrier status for fatty acid oxidation disorders, and could have prevented 88% of false negative events caused by cutoff 7 values set inappropriately. In Minnesota, their prospective application has been a major contributing factor to the sustained achievement of a false positive rate below 0.1% and a positive predictive value above 60%. Conclusions: Application of this computational approach to raw data could make cutoff values for single analytes effectively obsolete. This paradigm is not limited to newborn screening and is applicable to the interpretation of diverse multi-analyte profiles utilized in laboratory medicine. Abstract wor