OBJECTIVES: To estimate the disease burden and unmet needs among Chinese migraine patients who were preventive-naïve and preventive-treated.

METHODS: Data were drawn from the Adelphi Migraine Disease Specific Programme™, a point-in-time survey conducted in China (January-June 2014). 125 Internists/neurologists completed patient-record-forms for nine consecutive migraine patients plus a tenth who previously failed at least one preventive treatment to achieve an oversampling. Patients were meanwhile invited to complete a patient self-completion questionnaire (PSC). Descriptive analyses were performed: patient demographics and characteristics, reasons for switching preventive treatment, Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) scores, and work productivity and activity impairment.

RESULTS: In total, 1231 patients with episodic migraine (monthly headache days<15) were identified (680 preventive-naïve; 551 preventive-treated). Of these, 992 completed PSC (598 preventive-naïve; 394 preventive-treated). The mean age was 44.3±13.5 and 44.3±12.8 years for preventive-naïve and preventive-treated group, respectively. The number of monthly migraine days was significantly higher in preventive-treated group (3.7±1.6 vs 2.8±1.7, p<0.0001). Preventive-treated group had a significantly lower insufficient response (migraine headache fully resolved within 2 hours in ≤3/5 attacks) rate to current acute treatment (37.3% vs 47.4%, p=0.0049). Lack of efficacy was the main reason for switching from previous medications including calcium channel antagonists, beta-blockers or antidepressants (88.9%, 85.3%, and 81.8%, respectively). The mean total MIDAS score was significantly higher in preventive-treated group compared with preventive-naïve group (8.2±9.6 vs 4.4±5.5, p<0.0001), with mild-to-severe disability reported by 52.9% (preventive-treated group) and 26.8% (preventive-naïve group) of patients. The overall percentage of work time impaired (including work time missed and impairment while working) was significantly lower in preventive-treated group than in preventive-naïve group (46.9%±24.9% vs 65.4%±20.8%, p<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS: Among migraine patients who are preventive-treated, there remains considerable unmet needs.