A Systematic Review of Trends From Migraine Preference Studies
Author(s)
Natasha Ramachandran, MSc1, Harrison Clarke, MSc2, Divya Mohan, MSc3, Jaein Seo, MS, PharmD2.
1Thermo Fisher Scientific, London, United Kingdom, 2Thermo Fisher Scientific, Wilmington, NC, USA, 3OPEN Health, London, United Kingdom.
1Thermo Fisher Scientific, London, United Kingdom, 2Thermo Fisher Scientific, Wilmington, NC, USA, 3OPEN Health, London, United Kingdom.
OBJECTIVES: Migraine management is often suboptimal due to undertreatment and inconsistent efficacy. Preference studies have increasingly been conducted to inform treatment decisions and development. This review examined the treatment features explored in preference studies and provided recommendations for improving future preference research.
METHODS: Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library were searched for English-language studies using stated preference methods, published any time. A textual analysis was performed, followed by a narrative synthesis, with descriptive statistics applied for quantitative data.
RESULTS: Fifteen studies were eligible among 187 reviewed. Stated preference methods included discrete choice experiments (n=10), conjoint analysis (n=1), willingness to pay (n=2), thresholding (n=1), and time trade-off (n=1). Three studies employed a single method for attribute development: literature review (n=2) or clinical expert consultation (n=1). Nine studies employed multi-method approaches combining literature review with multiple steering committee or expert consultations (n=2), qualitative patient interviews (n=3) or patient interviews and multiple expert consultations (n=4). Among studies published between 2019 and 2025 (n=12), eight used multi-method designs. The average number attributes per study was 5.8, ranging from 2-17. Thirty-six benefit attributes were categorized into 13 distinct concepts, with speed of onset being most reported (n=7). Frequently reported risk attributes included injection site reactions (n=4) cognitive effects (n=3) and gastrointestinal effects (n=3). Administration-related attributes were explored in nine studies, with oral and injectable methods (n=8) and frequency of administration (n=8) being the most common. Benefit attributes were generally ranked higher in relative attribute importance estimates, followed by risk and administration attributes.
CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights the trends in the development and reporting of preference studies in migraine treatment. Future research should continue employing comprehensive multi-method designs to ensure holistic understanding of patient priorities.
METHODS: Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library were searched for English-language studies using stated preference methods, published any time. A textual analysis was performed, followed by a narrative synthesis, with descriptive statistics applied for quantitative data.
RESULTS: Fifteen studies were eligible among 187 reviewed. Stated preference methods included discrete choice experiments (n=10), conjoint analysis (n=1), willingness to pay (n=2), thresholding (n=1), and time trade-off (n=1). Three studies employed a single method for attribute development: literature review (n=2) or clinical expert consultation (n=1). Nine studies employed multi-method approaches combining literature review with multiple steering committee or expert consultations (n=2), qualitative patient interviews (n=3) or patient interviews and multiple expert consultations (n=4). Among studies published between 2019 and 2025 (n=12), eight used multi-method designs. The average number attributes per study was 5.8, ranging from 2-17. Thirty-six benefit attributes were categorized into 13 distinct concepts, with speed of onset being most reported (n=7). Frequently reported risk attributes included injection site reactions (n=4) cognitive effects (n=3) and gastrointestinal effects (n=3). Administration-related attributes were explored in nine studies, with oral and injectable methods (n=8) and frequency of administration (n=8) being the most common. Benefit attributes were generally ranked higher in relative attribute importance estimates, followed by risk and administration attributes.
CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights the trends in the development and reporting of preference studies in migraine treatment. Future research should continue employing comprehensive multi-method designs to ensure holistic understanding of patient priorities.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2025-11, ISPOR Europe 2025, Glasgow, Scotland
Value in Health, Volume 28, Issue S2
Code
PCR11
Topic
Patient-Centered Research
Topic Subcategory
Health State Utilities
Disease
Neurological Disorders