Low-value care practice in headache: a Spanish mixed methods research study

Background Headache is one of the most prevalent diseases. The Global Burden of Disease Study ranks it as the seventh most common disease overall and the second largest neurological cause of disability in the world. The "Do Not Do" recommendations are a strategy for increasing the quality of care and reducing the cost of care for headache. This study aimed to identify specific low-value practices in headache care, determine their frequency, and estimate the cost overrun that they represent, in order to establish "Do not Do" recommendations specifically for headache by consensus and according to scientific evidence. Methods This was a mixed methods research study that combined qualitative consensus-building techniques, involving a multidisciplinary panel of experts to define the "Do Not Do" recommendations in headache care, and a retrospective observational study with review of a randomized set of patient records from the past 6 months in four hospitals, to quantify the frequency of these "Do Not Do" practices. We calculated the sum of direct costs of medical consultations, medicines, and unnecessary diagnostic tests. Results Seven "Do Not Do" recommendations were established for headache. In total, 3507 medical records were randomly reviewed. Low-value practices had a highly variable occurrence, depending on the hospital and type of headache. Overall, 34.1% of low-value practices were related to treatment, 21% were related to overuse of imaging in consultation, and 19% were related to emergency care. The estimated cost of low-value practices in the four hospitals was 203,520.47 euros per 1000 patients. Conclusions This study identified low-value headache practices that need to be eradicated and provided data on their frequency and cost overruns

Manual therapy for chronic migraine: a pragmatic randomised controlled trial study protocol

Introduction Chronic migraine is a largely refractory condition affecting between 1 and 2.2% of the overall population worldwide, with females more affected than males. There are also high health and socioeconomic costs associated both for the individual and society. The mainstay of chronic migraine management is pharmacological, but the options available have limited efficacy and there are often unwanted side effects. There is some evidence for manual therapy as a treatment option for migraine, but its effectiveness for chronic migraine is unknown. Therefore, we have designed a pragmatic randomised control trial to investigate whether adding manual therapy to the tertiary specialist treatment of chronic migraine improves patient-reported outcomes. Methods A pragmatic, randomised controlled trial in a hospital tertiary headache clinic. Participants will be randomised into one of two groups: treatment as usual or treatment as usual plus manual therapy. The primary outcome measure will be a change in the Headache Impact Test score. Secondary outcomes will also be measured over the 12-week study period including changes in headache frequency, migraine specific quality of life and reductions in relevant medicine consumption. The manual therapy group will have five treatment sessions each lasting 30 min. The recruitment target of 64 participants will allow power at 80% with p = 0.05 using minimal clinical difference for Headache Impact Test of 3.7 and includes provision for a 10% dropout rate. Recruitment will take place between August 2018 and February 2019. The results will form part of a doctoral study and be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at national/international conferences. Discussion Current pharmacological approaches have limited effects in the management of chronic migraine and there is a requirement to improve treatment options and reduce the health and economic burden of the condition. Manual therapy has been shown to be effective in other chronic pain conditions as well as other primary headaches. This study will explore the effectiveness of manual therapy as an adjunctive approach to the management of chronic migraine. Trial registration The trial has received a favourable opinion from the UK Health Research Authority (IRAS 228901) and is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov.number NCT03395457. Registered 1st March 2018

Cost-effectiveness of twice-daily indacaterol/glycopyrrolate inhalation powder for the treatment of moderate to severe COPD in the US

Krithika Rajagopalan,1 Lisa Bloudek,2 Jessica Marvel,3 Carole Dembek,1 Abhishek Kavati3 1Sunovion Pharmaceuticals Inc., Marlborough, MA 01752, USA; 2Curta Inc., Seattle, WA 98116, USA; 3Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, East Hanover, NJ 07936, USA Background: Indacaterol 27.5 µg/glycopyrrolate 15.6 µg (IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 µg) inhalation powder, a twice-daily, fixed-dose combination of a long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) and a long-acting antimuscarinic antagonist (LAMA), is indicated in the US for long-term maintenance treatment of airflow obstruction in patients with COPD. The safety and efficacy of IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 µg have been established, but cost-effectiveness is not yet known. This study compared the cost-effectiveness of IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 µg with other long-acting COPD maintenance therapies. Methods: A Markov model was constructed from the US payer perspective. Health states were defined as mild (post-bronchodilator FEV1 ≥80% of predicted), moderate (50% ≤FEV1 <80% of predicted), severe (30% ≤FEV1 <50% of predicted), and very severe (FEV1 <30% of predicted) COPD. Patients entering the model transitioned through health states based on placebo-adjusted change from baseline in trough FEV1 for each comparator at week 12. Comparators included other US Food and Drug Administration-approved LABA/LAMA fixed-dose combinations as well as commonly prescribed LAMA and LABA/inhaled corticosteroid agents. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the model assumptions and the overall robustness of the results. Results: Using the model, IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 µg treatment for 12 weeks resulted in total costs of US $23,375 vs US$9,365 for placebo. Compared with placebo, IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 treatment resulted in the highest improvement in FEV1 across all comparators and the lowest cost per decline in 100 mL FEV1. IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 µg was also among the most cost-effective treatment option as measured by St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire response rate, at US 3,518 per additional responder at 12 weeks compared with placebo. In addition, IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 µg had the lowest cost per severe exacerbation avoided vs placebo across all comparators (US 87,686). Conclusion: This model, developed from the US payer perspective with a 5-year time horizon, found IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 µg to be a cost-effective treatment option for patients with moderate to severe COPD. Keywords: indacaterol, glycopyrrolate, cost-effectiveness, FEV1, SGRQ, dual bronchodilatio