Table 2.
Treatment uptake, use of resources and lost productivity according to treatment management plan (Russia)
| Headache type | Current care (%) | Target care (%) | Notes | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Uptake (including coverage and adherence) | Migraine | 64.7 | 82.0 |
Current care: 63.5% migraine non-specific; 0.5% migraine specific; 0.7% migraine prophylaxis Target care: We assumed that structured services with consumer education and provider training enhances coverage and adherence so that overall uptake is increased by 50%; medicines uptake = [{100% - 64.7%}/2] + 64.7%) = 82.0% |
| TTH | 55.6 | 77.8 |
55.6% (acute medications) TTH; 0% TTH prophylaxis (see treatment plan below) Target care: We assumed as above; medicines uptake = [{100% - 55.6%}/2] + 55.6%) = 77.8% |
|
| MOH | 0 | 50.0 |
Current care: 0% treated Target care: We assumed that structured services with consumer education and provider training enhances treatment coverage and adherence so that proportion withdrawn from medicines overuse is increased by 50% of current deficit: withdrawal = [{100–0%}/2] + 0%) = 50% |
|
| TREATMENT PLAN | ||||
| A. Acute management (non-specific drugs) | ||||
| Simple analgesics (eg, ASA 1 g) | Migraine | 63.5 | 41.0 |
Current care: from Eurolight data [20] Target care: With provider training, treatment with simple analgesics alone is offered to 50% (expert assumption), with uptake = 41.0% (50% of 82.0%) |
| TTH | 55.6 | 75.5 |
Current care: from Eurolight data [20] Target care: With provider training, treatment with simple analgesics alone is offered to 97% (expert assumption), with uptake = 75.5% (97% of 77.8%) |
|
| MOH | 0 | 0 | Not applicable to MOH care | |
| B. Acute management (specific drugs) | ||||
| Sumatriptan 50 mg | Migraine | 0.5 | 0 |
Current care: from Eurolight data [20] Target care: With provider training, treatment with specific drugs alone is offered to 0% (expert assumption) |
| TTH | 0 | 0 | Not applicable to TTH care | |
| MOH | 0 | 0 | Not applicable to MOH care | |
| C. Acute stepped-care management | ||||
| ASA 1 g + sumatriptan 50 mg | Migraine | 0 | 16.4 |
Current care: not included in current care Target care: With provider training, acute stepped-care management is offered to 20% (expert assumption), with uptake = 16.4% (20% of 82.0%) |
| TTH | 0 | 0 | Not applicable to TTH care | |
| MOH | 0 | 0 | Not applicable to MOH care | |
| D. Prophylaxis + acute management | ||||
| Amitriptyline 100 mg/day + ASA 1 g + sumatriptan 50 mg | Migraine | 0.7 | 24.6 |
Current care: from Eurolight data [20] Target care: With provider training, prophylaxis + acute stepped-care management is offered to 30% (expert assumption), with uptake = 24.6% (30% of 82.0%) |
| TTH | 0 | 2.3 |
Current care: not included in current care Target care: With provider training, prophylaxis + acute care management is offered to 3% (expert assumption), with uptake = 2.3% (3% of 77.8%) |
|
| MOH | 0 | 0 | Not applicable to MOH care | |
| Consultations and investigations | ||||
| Doctor visits (year 1) | Migraine | 25.1 | 50.0 |
Current care: 25.1% with migraine had seen a doctor (Eurolight data [20]), of whom 19.3% had seen a GP and 5.8% a specialist. We assumed 2 visits in either case. Target care: With consumer education, 50% see a doctor (expert assumption based on estimated need for professional care). Note that in the model those who see a specialist would see a GP first. |
| TTH | 9.4 | 2.25 |
Current care: 9.4% with TTH had seen a doctor (Eurolight data [20]), of whom 6.9% had seen a GP and 2.5% a specialist. We assumed 2 visits in either case. Target care: With consumer education, 3% (Stovner 2007 [21]) × 75% = 2.25% see a specialist and none see a GP (expert assumption based on estimated need for professional care). Note that those who see a specialist would see a GP first. |
|
| MOH | 51.2 | 100 |
Current care: 51.2% with MOH had seen a doctor (Eurolight data [20]), of whom 21.6% had seen a GP and 29.6% a specialist. We assumed 2 visits in either case. Target care: With consumer education, 100% see a doctor (expert assumption based on estimated need for professional care). Note that those who see a specialist would see a GP first. |
|
| GP visits | Migraine | 19.3 | 45.0 |
Current care: 19.3% had seen a GP (Eurolight data [20]) Target care: With consumer education, 45.0% (90% of 50%) see a GP (we assumed 2 visits in a year) |
| TTH | 6.9 | 0 |
Current care: 6.9% had seen a GP (2 times in a year) (Eurolight data [20]) Target care: Chronic TTH is difficult to treat, so we assumed that all should go to levels 2 or 3 (ie, “specialists”). Note that those who see a specialist would see a GP first. |
|
| MOH | 21.6 | 100 |
Current care: 21.6% had seen a GP (2 times in a year) (Eurolight data [20]) Target care: With consumer education, 100% see a GP (we assumed 2 visits in a year) |
|
| Specialist visits | Migraine | 5.8 | 5.0 |
Current care: 5.8% had seen a specialist (2 times in a year) Target care: With consumer education and provider training, 5.0% (10% of 50%) see a specialist (we assumed 2 visits in a year) |
| TTH | 2.5 | 2.25 |
Current care: 2.5% had seen a specialist (2 times in a year) Target care: With consumer education and provider training, 2.25% see a specialist (we assumed 2 visits in a year) |
|
| MOH | 29.6 | 100 |
Current care: 29.6% saw a GP (2 times in a year) Target care: With consumer education and provider training, 100% see a specialist (we assumed 2 visits in a year) |
|
| Investigations (MRI) (year one) | Migraine | 8.5 | 1.0 |
Current care: All those seeing a specialist had MRI (one in a year) Target care: With provider training, we assumed 1% have MRI (one in a year) |
| TTH | 1.0 | 0.5 |
Current care: 1% had an MRI Target care: We assumed 0.5% have MRI examination (one in a year) – half the current estimate |
|
| MOH | 0 | 0 |
Current care: Nobody had an MRI Target care: Nobody has an MRI |
|
| Doctor visits (years 2–5) | Migraine | 24.6 | 50.0 |
Current care: 24.6% with migraine had seen a doctor (Eurolight data [20]), of whom all saw a GP only after year 1. We assumed 2 visits per year. Target care: With consumer education, 50% see a doctor (expert assumption based on estimated need for professional care) |
| TTH | 9.4 | 2.25 |
Current care: 9.4% with TTH had seen a doctor (Eurolight data [20]), of whom all saw a GP only after year 1. We assumed 2 visits per year. Target care: With consumer education, 3% (Stovner 2007 [21]) × 75% = 2.25% see a doctor (expert assumption based on estimated need for professional care). Note that those who see a specialist would see a GP first. |
|
| MOH | 51.2 | 100 |
Current care: 51.2% with MOH had seen a doctor (Eurolight data [20]), of whom all saw a GP only after year 1. We assumed 2 visits per year. Target care: With consumer education, 100% see a doctor |
|
| GP visits | Migraine | 24.6 | 50.0 |
Current care: 24.6% saw a GP. We assumed 2 visits each year. Target care: With consumer education, 50% see a GP. We assumed 2 visits each year. |
| TTH | 9.4 | 0 |
Current care: 9.4% saw a GP. We assumed 2 visits each year. Target care: Chronic TTH is difficult to treat, so we assumed that all should go to levels 2 or 3 (ie, “specialists”). Note that those who see a specialist would see a GP first. |
|
| MOH | 51.2 | 100 |
Current care: 51.2% saw a GP. We assumed 2 visits each year. Target care: With consumer education, 100% see a GP. We assumed 2 visits each year. |
|
| Specialist visits | Migraine | 0 | 0 |
Current care: No visits after year 1 Target care: No visits after year 1 |
| TTH | 0 | 2.25 |
Current care: No visits after year 1 Target care: With consumer education and provider training, 2.25% see a specialist (we assumed 2 visits in a year). |
|
| MOH | 0 | 0 |
Current care: No visits after year 1 Target care: No visits after year 1 |
|
| Investigation (MRI) (years 2–5) | Migraine | 0 | 0 |
Current care: nobody had an MRI after year 1 Target care: nobody had an MRI after year 1 |
| TTH | 0 | 0 |
Current care: nobody had an MRI after year 1 Target care: nobody had an MRI after year 1 |
|
| MOH | 0 | 0 |
Current care: nobody had an MRI after year 1 Target care: nobody had an MRI after year 1 |
|
| Lost productivity | We assumed that lost work productivity is correlated with disease-related disability, and reduced disability would bring reduced lost productivity. In our baseline scenario, all lost productivity was explained by disease-related disability. | |||
| Days lost from work in 12 months | Migraine | 7.6 | 3.9 |
Current care: based on Eurolight data [16] Target care: we assumed 49% decrease in lost productivity (equal to the gain in HLYs reported for migraine (see Table 4)): 7.6-(7.6*0.49) = 3.9 days. |
| TTH | 3.2 | 1.0 |
Current care: based on Eurolight data [16] Target care: we assumed 68% decrease in lost productivity (equal to the gain in HLYs reported for TTH (see Table 4)): 3.2-(3.2*0.68) = 1.0 days. |
|
| MOH | 22.8 |
11.6 (if revert to migraine); 7.3 (if revert to TTH) |
Current care: based on Eurolight data [16] Target care: for individuals reverting to migraine, we assumed 49% decrease in lost productivity (equal to the gain in HLYs reported for migraine (see Table 4)): 22.8 - (22.8*0.49) = 11.6 days for individuals reverting to TTH, we assumed 76% decrease in lost productivity (equal to the gain in HLYs reported for TTH (see Table 4)): 22.8-(22.8*0.68) = 7.3 days. |
|