PRECISIONheor, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, Inc, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
Headache. 2023 Apr;63(4):506-516. doi: 10.1111/head.14479. Epub 2023 Mar 15.
To characterize treatment decision-making processes and formalize consensus regarding key factors headache specialists consider in treatment decisions for patients with migraine, considering novel therapies.
Migraine therapies have long been subject to binary classification, acute versus preventive, due to limitations of available drugs. The emergence of novel therapies that can be used more flexibly creates an opportunity to rethink this binary classification. To determine the role of these novel therapies in treatment, it is critical to understand whether existing guidelines reflect clinical practice and to establish consensus around factors driving management.
A three-round modified Delphi process was conducted with migraine clinical experts. Round 1 consisted of an online questionnaire; Round 2 involved an online discussion of aggregated Round 1 results; and Round 3 allowed participants to revise Round 1 responses, incorporating Round 2 insights. Questions elicited likelihood ratings (0 = highly unlikely to 100 = highly likely), rankings, and estimates on treatment decision-making.
Nineteen experts completed three Delphi rounds. Experts strongly agreed on definitions for "acute" (median = 100, inter-quartile range [IQR] = 5) and "preventive" treatment (median = 90, IQR = 15), but noted a need for treatment customization for patients (median = 100, IQR = 6). Experts noted certain aspects of guidelines may no longer apply based on established tolerability and efficacy of newer acute and preventive agents (median = 91, IQR = 17). Further, experts agreed on a treatment category referred to as "situational prevention" (or "short-term prevention") for patients with reliable and predictable migraine triggers (median = 100, IQR = 10) or time-limited periods when headache avoidance is important (median = 100, IQR = 12).
Using the modified Delphi method, a panel of migraine experts identified the importance of customizing treatment for people with migraine and the utility of "situational prevention," given the ability of new treatment options to meet this need and the potential to clinically identify patients and time periods when this approach would add value.
描述治疗决策过程,并就头痛专家在考虑偏头痛患者治疗决策时考虑的关键因素达成共识,这些因素考虑了新型治疗方法。
由于现有药物的局限性,偏头痛治疗长期以来一直采用二分法,即急性治疗与预防性治疗。新型治疗方法的出现为重新思考这种二分法提供了机会。为了确定这些新型治疗方法在治疗中的作用,了解现有指南是否反映临床实践并就推动管理的因素达成共识至关重要。
采用三轮改良 Delphi 法对偏头痛临床专家进行调查。第一轮包括在线问卷调查;第二轮是对第一轮汇总结果的在线讨论;第三轮允许参与者修改第一轮的回复,纳入第二轮的见解。问题引发了对治疗决策的可能性评分(0=极不可能,100=极有可能)、排名和估计。
19 名专家完成了三轮 Delphi 研究。专家们对“急性”(中位数=100,四分位距[IQR]=5)和“预防性”治疗(中位数=90,IQR=15)的定义达成了强烈一致,但指出需要为患者定制治疗方案(中位数=100,IQR=6)。专家们指出,基于新型急性和预防性药物的可耐受性和疗效,某些指南的某些方面可能不再适用(中位数=91,IQR=17)。此外,专家们还就针对有可靠且可预测偏头痛触发因素的患者的“情境预防”(或“短期预防”)治疗类别达成了一致意见(中位数=100,IQR=10),或在头痛回避很重要的有限时间段内(中位数=100,IQR=12)。
使用改良 Delphi 法,一组偏头痛专家确定了为偏头痛患者定制治疗方案的重要性,以及“情境预防”的实用性,这是因为新型治疗选择有能力满足这种需求,并且有可能从临床角度确定患者和时间段,从而使这种方法具有价值。