IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v15y2022i1d10.1007_s40271-021-00525-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patient Perspectives and Experiences of Preventive Treatments and Self-Injectable Devices for Migraine: A Focus Group Study

Author

Listed:
  • Jaein Seo

    (Patient-Centered Research, Evidera)

  • Charlie A. Smith

    (Patient-Centered Research, Evidera)

  • Caitlin Thomas

    (Patient-Centered Research, Evidera)

  • Tommi Tervonen

    (Patient-Centered Research, Evidera
    University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen)

  • Asha Hareendran

    (Patient-Centered Research, Evidera)

  • Janet H. Ford

    (Eli Lilly)

  • Virginia L. Stauffer

    (Eli Lilly)

  • Robert A. Nicholson

    (Eli Lilly)

  • Kevin Harrison Duffy

    (Eli Lilly)

  • Antje Tockhorn-Heidenreich

    (Eli Lilly)

Abstract

Background Although several self-injectable preventive treatments for migraine have become available, they are not yet widely used. Thus, understanding patients’ perceptions towards them is limited. Objective This study aimed to inform the design of a preference-elicitation instrument, which is being developed to quantify preventive treatment preferences of people with migraine. Methods We conducted a qualitative study involving nine in-person focus groups (three per country) in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany. Participants were adults (n = 47) with episodic or chronic migraine who were currently using or had used a prescription preventive treatment for migraine within the previous 5 years. During the focus groups, participants described their experiences of migraine and preventive treatments; handled and simulated self-injection using five different unbranded, fired demonstration auto-injectors and prefilled syringes; and ranked different aspects of preventive treatments by importance. Focus groups were analyzed with a focus on themes that would be feasible or meaningful to include in a subsequent preference-elicitation instrument. Results Reducing the frequency and severity of migraine attacks was consistently ranked as the most important aspect of preventive treatment. Participants expressed dissatisfaction with available daily oral preventive treatments for migraine they had previously used because they were ineffective or caused intolerable adverse events. Many participants were willing to self-inject a treatment that was effective and tolerable. When presented with devices for self-injecting a preventive treatment for migraine, participants generally preferred autoinjectors over prefilled syringes. Participants especially valued safety features such as the unlocking step and automated needle insertion, and audible and visual dose confirmation increased confidence in autoinjector use. Autoinjector needle protection mechanisms were also appreciated, especially by participants averse to needles, as the needles are not visible. Conclusions This study highlights the fact that many people with migraine still lack access to a preventive treatment that is effective and tolerable. In addition to efficacy and safety considerations, treatment decisions may be guided by the mode of administration. In the case of self-injectable preventive treatments, key device characteristics affecting these decisions may be ease of use, comfort, and confidence in self-injection. Insights gained from this study were used to help develop a preliminary set of attributes and levels for a preference-elicitation instrument.

Suggested Citation

  • Jaein Seo & Charlie A. Smith & Caitlin Thomas & Tommi Tervonen & Asha Hareendran & Janet H. Ford & Virginia L. Stauffer & Robert A. Nicholson & Kevin Harrison Duffy & Antje Tockhorn-Heidenreich, 2022. "Patient Perspectives and Experiences of Preventive Treatments and Self-Injectable Devices for Migraine: A Focus Group Study," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 15(1), pages 93-108, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:15:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1007_s40271-021-00525-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-021-00525-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-021-00525-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40271-021-00525-z?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:15:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1007_s40271-021-00525-z. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.