Next Article in Journal
Characterization, Bioactivity, and Biodistribution of 35 kDa Hyaluronan Fragment
Next Article in Special Issue
Neuromodulation Techniques for Headache Management
Previous Article in Journal
The Most Recent Insights into the Roots of Gastric Cancer
Previous Article in Special Issue
Cervical Impairments in Subjects with Chronic Migraine: An Observational Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Life
Volume 14
Issue 1
10.3390/life14010096
life-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Treatment Patterns for and Characteristics of Headache in Children and Adolescents Aged 6–17 Years in Japan: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Analysis of Health Insurance Claims Data

by
Masahito Katsuki
1,2,*,
Yasuhiko Matsumori
3,
Taisuke Ichihara
4,
Yuya Yamada
4,
Shin Kawamura
5,
Kenta Kashiwagi
6,
Akihito Koh
5,
Tetsuya Goto
1,
Kazuma Kaneko
2,7,
Naomichi Wada
1,2 and
Fuminori Yamagishi
8
1
Department of Neurosurgery, Suwa Red Cross Hospital, Suwa 392-0027, Japan
2
Headache Outpatient, Suwa Red Cross Hospital, Suwa 392-0027, Japan
3
Sendai Headache and Neurology Clinic, Sendai 982-0014, Japan
4
Japan System Techniques Co., Ltd. (JAST), Minato-ku 108-8288, Japan
5
Department of Neurosurgery, Itoigawa General Hospital, Itoigawa 941-0006, Japan
6
Department of Neurology, Itoigawa General Hospital, Itoigawa 941-0006, Japan
7
Department of Neurology, Suwa Red Cross Hospital, Suwa 392-0027, Japan
8
Department of Surgery, Itoigawa General Hospital, Itoigawa 941-0006, Japan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Life 2024, 14(1), 96; https://doi.org/10.3390/life14010096
Submission received: 13 November 2023 / Revised: 21 December 2023 / Accepted: 6 January 2024 / Published: 8 January 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Current Problems and New Horizons in Headache Clinical Practice)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Objective: To investigate the prescription patterns for patients aged 6–17 years with headaches in the REZULT database. Methods: We cross-sectionally investigated (Study 1) the pattern of prescription and the proportion of triptan overprescription (≥30 tablets/90 d of triptans) among patients diagnosed with headaches in 2020. Next, we longitudinally studied patients (Study 2) for more than two years from the initial headache diagnosis (July 2010 to April 2022). The number of prescribed tablets was counted every 90 days. Results: In Study 1, headache diagnoses were assigned to 62,568 of 543,628 (11.51%) patients, and 1524 of 62,568 (2.44%) patients received acute medication. Single nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and triptans were prescribed to 620/624 (99.36%) and 5/624 (0.80%) of patients aged 6–11 years, respectively, and 827/900 (91.89%) and 91/900 (10.11%) of patients aged 12–17 years, respectively. Triptan overprescription was observed in 11/96 (11.46%) patients, and 5/11 (45.45%) of those patients received prophylactic medication. In Study 2, 80,756/845,470 (9.55%) patients aged 6–17 years were diagnosed with headaches that persisted for at least two years. Over two years, 44/80,756 (0.05%) patients were overprescribed triptans, and 3408/80,756 (4.22%) patients were prescribed prophylaxis on at least one occasion. Conclusions: Based on real-world data, the appropriate use of prophylactic treatment is still problematic. Overprescription of triptans was observed, although the number of patients was small.

1. Introduction

Primary headaches are a widespread public health problem. The prevalence of migraine is approximately 12%, and tension-type headache (TTH) occurs in up to 50% of the population [1,2]. Inappropriate acute medication use can cause medication overuse headache (MOH), with a prevalence of approximately 1–2% [3]. Headache disorders significantly impede the daily functioning of patients [4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13] and are a burden for children and adolescents. A study conducted in a Japanese city with 40,000 residents revealed that the prevalence rates of headaches, migraines, and MOHs in children and adolescents were 36.44%, 9.48%, and 0.44%, respectively. Among the 907 children and adolescents with headaches in the study, 638 (70.34%) had experienced a depressed mood due to headaches, 630 (69.46%) endured headaches, 386 (42.56%) left school early, 353 (38.92%) were absent from school, 337 (37.16%) had difficulty attending class, and 291 (32.08%) had difficulty in after school activities due to headaches. However, only 314 (34.62%) patients consulted a physician [14]. Similar trends have been reported worldwide [12,15].
Managing primary headaches involves the use of acute medications to treat headache attacks and prophylactic medications to decrease the occurrence and intensity [16]. Inappropriate prescription without prophylactic medication for severe headache disorders can increase the likelihood of developing resistance to treatment, experiencing additional health conditions, developing chronic migraines, and encountering medication overuse headaches (MOHs) [17,18]. However, there is a shortage of headache specialists, which leads to the management of primary headaches by general practitioners, family physicians, and pediatricians on a global scale [19,20,21,22]. As a result, the worrying issue of excessive prescription of acute medications without the concurrent use of preventive medications arises. In Japan, only 19 pediatricians specialize in headache management, and this is accompanied by a lack of suitable prescriptions in pediatrics.
Recently, data-based research has been published on National Health Insurance claims using numerous data sets from adults with headaches [23,24,25,26,27,28]. However, few of these studies have been conducted in Japan [29,30,31]. Furthermore, only two studies have used data from health insurance claims on the prevalence of headaches in children and adolescents [32,33]; this has not yet been carried out in Japan. Big data research can shed light on physician prescription patterns in Japan. Therefore, this study investigated a health insurance database to clarify the treatment patterns for headaches among children and adolescents aged 6–17 years.

2. Materials and Methods

Every individual residing in Japan must be provided health insurance by employers and local community insurers. In addition, the government has established cost schedules for healthcare services [29]. Receipts from health insurance providers that catered to employees were documented in the REZULT database, encompassing data from over 8 million patients. This information was collected by Japan System Techniques Co., Ltd. in Tokyo, Japan (https://www.jastlab.jast.jp/rezult_data/, accessed on 1 October 2023). The REZULT database included patients aged 6–11 years, corresponding to 5.51% of the Japanese population in that age bracket, whereas 12–17-year-olds constituted 4.89% of the sample. This database contains information such as consultation and treatment dates, the name of the disease, patient age, biological sex, and details regarding medical treatment, including prescriptions and information about the medical facility. Each patient enrolled in the database was assigned a unique and confidential identification number, allowing comprehensive monitoring of prescription patterns over time.
In Japan, both combined pain relievers and single pain-relief medications are available for purchase without prescription (over-the-counter (OTC) medications). However, the sale of triptans and preventive migraine medications, such as antihypertensive drugs, antiepileptic drugs, and antidepressants as OTC medications is not allowed. Prophylactic treatment and triptans can only be prescribed for patients clinically diagnosed with migraine. Single and combined nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) can be prescribed for headaches that do not necessarily lead to a migraine diagnosis. NSAIDs are also prescribed for other persistent pain conditions, such as lower back pain. However, tracking the conditions for which these drugs were prescribed is impossible.
No data were available on the departments visited by patients with headaches. Pediatrics is the most commonly visited department for children under 15 years of age. General practice, neurology, and neurosurgery are the most frequently visited departments for this group.

2.1. Study 1 (Cross-Sectional Study): Prescription Pattern for Headache Patients

Using the REZULT database, we extracted the data for patients aged 6–17 years with a 1-year continued diagnosis of “headache (International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD)-10 code R51)” or “Other headache syndromes” (ICD-10 code G44) in 2020. We included those who had received acute medications to examine trends in the usage of acute and prophylactic medications. The presence or absence of a diagnosis of “migraine” (identified by the ICD-10 code G43) was not considered. We did not use the International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition criteria (ICHD-3) because insurance claims are rarely based on ICHD-3 in Japan.
Acute treatment was defined as the prescription of a single nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), a combination of NSAIDs, or triptans. Prophylactic treatments included the prescription of specific medications, including lomerizine, propranolol, valproic acid, amitriptyline, verapamil, and Japanese herbal Kampo medicine, as described in the Japanese guidelines [16]. Supplementary File S1 contains the codes for the drug price list. In Japan, topiramate cannot be used for migraine prophylaxis. The number of acute medication tablets prescribed between January 2020 and December 2020 was recorded and the percentage of cases involving excessive prescriptions was assessed.
Overprescription was defined according to ICHD-3 criteria as follows: the use of triptans or a combination of NSAIDs on more than 10 days (tablets) per month for three months (≥30 tablets/90 days (tbl/90 d)); the use of a single NSAID on more than 15 days (tablets) per month (≥45 tbl/90 d); or any combination of single or combined NSAIDs or triptans totaling ≥30 tbl/90 d. However, single NSAIDs were occasionally provided in forms like syrup or fine granules for children instead of tablets. Due to this variation, the overprescription of a single NSAID and overprescription of multiple drugs could not be calculated and were not the primary focus of this study. Furthermore, since determining the exact number of days for which acute medications were used during the study period was impossible, the count of “number of tablets per 90 days” was used instead of the “number of days per month when acute medications were used”.
The 90 days with the highest number of prescribed acute medications were chosen for each patient and their prescription trends were analyzed. Prophylactic treatment was defined as more than one tablet prescription during the 90 days. Many prophylactic medications for headaches have various uses, including the treatment of hypertension, epilepsy, and depression. Therefore, it was impossible to determine whether these medications were prescribed specifically to prevent migraines or to treat other conditions.

2.2. Study 2 (longitudinal Study): Overprescription during the 2 Years from the Initial Diagnosis

We tracked the changes in prescription patterns over two years from the initial headache diagnosis to reveal changes in prescription patterns over time and to establish how many people were overprescribed to acute medication. We analyzed 845,470 patients aged 6–17 years from July 2010 to April 2022. The number of prescribed tablets was counted every 90 days from the initial headache diagnosis. Our analysis involved determining the percentage of patients who were overprescribed a combination of NSAIDs or triptans during the study period. We investigated various factors, including age, sex, and the point at which patients experienced overprescription of combination NSAIDs or triptans. We also calculated the amount of acute medication prescribed during the initial 90 days and the prophylactic medication prescribed within the same time frame.
We used a Cox regression analysis to identify the factors influencing the duration of overprescription of a combination of NSAIDs or triptans. No prescriptions for calcitonin-gene-related peptide (CGRP)-related drugs for migraine prevention were identified in the dataset during the specified periods.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

The normality of the data was assessed using the Shapiro–Wilk test. Variables that followed a normal distribution were presented as means (standard deviations), whereas those with a non-normal distribution were presented as medians (interquartile range). A log-minus-log plot was used to verify whether the assumption of proportional hazards was true. Statistical significance was established via a two-tailed p value < 0.05. The analysis used SPSS 29.0.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) and Python 3.9.0, along with libraries including Pandas 2.0.2, PyCaret 3.1.0, scikit-survival 0.21.0, and Matplotlib 3.5.1.

2.4. Ethics

This study was approved by the Itoigawa General Hospital Ethics Committee (approval numbers: 2022-2, 2022-10). The need for written informed consent was waived due to the retrospective nature of the study. All procedures adhered to the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki. Studies 1 and 2 followed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines.

3. Results

3.1. Study 1 (Cross-Sectional Study): Prescription Pattern for Headache Patients

Of 543,628 patients aged 6–17 years in the 2020 REZULT database, 62,568 (11.51%) were diagnosed with headaches via the health insurance system. Furthermore, 1524 of 62,568 (2.44%) patients aged 6–17 years received at least one prescription for acute medication in 2020.
Patients aged 6–11 years with headaches and a prescription for acute medication (n = 624/1524) had a mean age of 8.83 (±1.67) years, and 314/624 (50.32%) were female. A single NSAID (acetaminophen made up the majority) was the most frequently prescribed acute medication (620/624 patients, 99.36%), and triptans were prescribed to 5/624 (0.80%) patients. Most patients received only acute treatment (607/624 patients, 97.28%), and 17/624 (2.72%) patients received prophylactic treatment. The number of patients overprescribed with a combination of NSAIDs or triptans (≥30 tbl/90 d) was 0/624 (0%) and 1/624 (0.11%), respectively, (Table 1).
Patients aged 11–17 years with headaches and a prescription for acute medication (n = 900/1524) had a mean age of 14.25 (±1.66) years, and 479/900 (53.22%) were female. A single NSAID (acetaminophen comprising the majority) was the most frequently prescribed acute medication (827/900 patients, 91.89%), and triptans were prescribed to 91/900 (10.11%) patients. Most patients received only acute treatment (824/900, 91.56%), whereas 76/900 (8.44%) received prophylactic treatment. The number of patients overprescribed with a combination of NSAIDs or triptans (≥30 tbl/90 d) was 6/900 (0.67%) and 10/900 (1.11%), respectively, (Table 2).
Among the 6–17-year-old patients with headaches prescribed acute medication (n = 1524), triptans were prescribed to 96/1524 (6.30%) patients (Table 3). The mean number of triptan tablets over 90 days was 22.77 (±21.58). Prophylactic treatment was prescribed to 29/96 (30.21%). The number of patients who were overprescribed triptans (≥30 tbl/90 d) was 11/96 (11.46%), and the mean number of tablets was 38.82 (±14.19). Of these patients, 5/11 (45.45%) received prophylactic treatment.

3.2. Study 2 (Longitudinal Study): Overprescription during the Study Period

Of the 845,470 patients aged 6–17 years from the REZULT database, 80,756/845,470 (9.55%) were first diagnosed with headaches that persisted for at least two consecutive years (July 2010 to April 2022). The mean age was 11.109 (±3.38) years, and 46,215 (57.23%) patients were women. During the first 90 days after headache diagnosis, 8/80,756 (0.01%) patients received >30 tablets of a combination of NSAIDs and 3/80,756 (0.004%) received >30 tablets of a triptan. Prophylactic medication was initiated in the first 90 days in 515/80,756 (0.64%) patients, which increased to 897/80,756 (1.11%) patients after two years. During the two years, 3408/80,756 (4.22%) patients with headaches were prescribed prophylactic medications on at least one occasion (Figure 1). The mean age was 11.51 (±3.15) years, and 1876/3408 (55.05%) were female. The mean duration of the first instance of prophylactic medication was 4.382 (2.32) terms of 90 days, approximately 12–15 months. Details of the sub-analyses of patients aged 6–11 years and 12–17 years are described in Table 4 and Table 5.
Of the 80 756 patients, 44 (0.05%) were overprescribed a triptan during the 2-year observation period. The mean age was 12.96 (±2.76) years, and 29/44 (65.91%) were female. The mean duration of the first instance of overprescription was 4.75 (1.93) terms of 90 days, approximately 12–15 months. Details of the sub-analyses of patients aged 6–11 years and 12–17 years are shown in Figure 2.
Cox regression analysis revealed that more triptan prescriptions in the first 3 months were a risk factor for triptan overprescription in the 2 years among the 6–11-year-old patients (p < 0.001). The presence of single NSAID prescriptions and more triptan prescriptions during the first 90 days were risk factors for triptan overprescription in the 2 years among 12–17-year-olds (p < 0.001) (Table 6).

4. Discussion

We used the REZULT database, a comprehensive health insurance database, to conduct two investigations into the prescription patterns of headache medications among individuals aged either 6–11 or 12–17 years.
In the initial cross-sectional study, which involved 1524 patients aged 6–17 diagnosed with headaches and receiving prescribed medication in 2020, only 93 out of 1524 patients (6.102%) were prescribed prophylactic medication. Furthermore, 11 out of 1524 patients (0.72%) were identified as receiving an excessive prescription of triptan. For the subsequent longitudinal study, we examined 80,756 patients diagnosed with persistent headaches that lasted at least two consecutive years. During the two-year duration, 44 of 80,756 patients (0.05%) were found to have overprescribed triptans within 90 days at least once and 3408 of 80,756 patients (4.22%) received prescriptions for prophylactic medications at least once.

4.1. Investigation of Health Insurance Claim Databases of Adult Headache Disorders

Several reports have used health insurance claim databases to investigate prescription patterns for adult patients with migraines or headaches. Recently, triptan overprescription has been reported. An investigation of the Dutch Health Care Insurance Board Database of 2005, which included 46% of the total Dutch population, showed that triptan was used by 85,172/6.1 million patients (1.3%); of the prescriptions, 8844/85,172 (10.4%) were overprescribed. [23] A French study conducted in 2011 found that of 99,450 patients prescribed triptans, 2.26% (2243/99,450 patients) could potentially use them excessively. [28] Research conducted in 2012 in two regions of Italy showed that approximately 10% of individuals using triptan were categorized as frequent users, taking ten or more tablets per month. Among these frequent users, roughly two-thirds continued this pattern for another three months. Another study conducted in Austria, [25] which involved a large sample size of 5,918,487 individuals, revealed that 0.56% of the population were triptan users and 6.0% were identified as overusers. Triptan overusers tended to be older than those who did not overuse triptan.
Similar to previous Japanese studies using health insurance claims data, Meyers et al. examined the treatment patterns of adult patients with migraines by analyzing information from the Japan Medical Data Center database. Over 3 years, among the 16,433 people diagnosed with migraine, 9873 (60.1%) were exclusively given acute medication, 3022 (18.4%) received prophylactic medications, and 3548 (21.6%) did not receive any prescribed medication. Additionally, a lower prevalence (1.4%) of migraine was observed than that observed in previous epidemiological studies. [1] This potential underestimate could arise from the fact that 69.4% of migraine patients had never sought medical advice for their headaches and only 11.6% of patients recognized their headaches as migraines. In this database, calcium-channel blockers and anticonvulsants have emerged as the predominant prophylactic medications.
Although triptan overuse has been studied using health claims data in adults, such studies have not yet been conducted in children and adolescents. In our study, the rate of triptan prescription (96/1524 headache patients with prescription (6.30%); 96/543,628 in the whole population (0.02%)) and the rate of overuse of triptans appeared to be lower than in adults. Our study suggests a modest potential for the use of triptans in children and adolescents compared to their efficacy in adults. In our study, prophylactic medication was prescribed to 93 patients (93/1524 headache patients with headache prescription (6.10%)). The proportion of prophylactic prescriptions was also lower than that in adults. The reason for this low prescription rate is unknown; it could be due to low efficacy, side effects that prevented prescription, or spontaneous headache remission.
Caution should be taken when interpreting prevalence and prescription rates. Patients with migraine resisted seeing a doctor [34], or if they did, they might not have been prescribed prophylactic medications [35]. Furthermore, Japanese herbal Kampo medicines [17] are the most commonly prescribed treatments. There are differences between the prophylactics that can be used in Japan and those available abroad [16].

4.2. Investigation of Health Insurance Claim Databases for Headache Disorders among Children and Adolescents

Law et al. [33] investigated the American Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data of 34,633 children aged 2–17 years, of whom 779 (2.6%) were headache-labeled between 2012 and 2015. The annual total healthcare expenditures were estimated to be 24.3% higher for headache patients than for other children and adolescents; therefore, they concluded that headaches in children and adolescents burden the economy.
Obermeier et al. [32] studied the medical costs of migraine treatment among children using the German health insurance claims data of 2597 (0.84%) children from a dataset of 306,926 children (6–11 years old) in 2017. They found that children with migraines had more comorbidities and that the annual medical costs for children with migraines were EUR 1018 compared with EUR 618 in the control group.
However, this study did not examine these economic health considerations [36,37]. In addition, the prevalence of migraine in health claims data may be lower than that reported in actual epidemiologic studies. In children, migraine patients may be either withheld from seeing a doctor or may not be diagnosed correctly, as these are also problems among adults.

4.3. Headache, Migraine, and MOH Prevalence in Children and Adolescents

Previous studies examining the prevalence of headaches, migraines, and MOH in children have been carried out. The prevalence rates vary notably among countries and ethnic groups. Nonetheless, our analysis of health insurance claims supports previous findings that both headaches and migraines become more frequent with age and are more commonly observed in females [38].
The global prevalence of MOH among children and adolescents appears to be <1%. The prevalence is 0.2% in Ethiopia [39], 0.7% in Lithuania and Mongolia [40,41], 0.8–1.2% in Zambia [42], 0.9% in Turkey [43], 1.1% in Iran [44], and 0.44% in Japan. [14] These investigations have revealed that MOHs are relatively infrequent in younger age groups but can occasionally manifest in adolescents. Children in need of medical care are likely taken to the hospital before they have access to their parents’ pain relievers, including OTC medications. Conversely, teenagers may not have constant parental oversight, which may lead to excessive OTC drug use because they purchase these medications independently.
Our study revealed that medical providers may cause MOH in patients by overprescribing a combination of NSAIDs or triptans. In particular, patients aged 15 years and older are seen in general practice rather than in pediatrics in Japan; therefore, medically induced MOH may be created in the same way as in adults [3]. Spreading correct knowledge about headache treatment [34] to pediatricians and physicians and using artificial intelligence support to improve the quality of care and diagnostic accuracy [45,46,47] may be solutions for reducing iatrogenic MOH. Furthermore, many existing prophylactic drugs are difficult to use in children due to their side effects. We hope that medications such as CGRP-related agents will become available for use in children in the future [48,49].

4.4. Limitations

This study had several limitations. First, a sampling bias occurred. For the cross-sectional study (Study 1), we specifically chose a 90-day timeframe with the highest number of acute medication prescriptions (tablet counts). In the longitudinal study (Study 2), we focused on patients who were diagnosed with headaches for two years following their initial diagnosis. This approach may have led to the inclusion of a significant proportion of patients with severe headaches. Additionally, as NSAIDs are not exclusively prescribed for headaches, excluding patients who regularly receive analgesics for other forms of persistent pain, such as back pain, was impossible. Our selection of patients who consistently bore the label “headache”, aimed to identify and encompass as many instances of recurrent headaches as possible. Nonetheless, it is essential to note that secondary headaches, which can arise from factors such as common cold, physical trauma [50], and arterial dissection [51,52], were not eliminated. Consequently, any interpretations drawn from these findings should be interpreted with caution.
Second, we retrospectively analyzed billing-related administrative claims data. Patient identification relied solely on available database information, preventing us from assessing migraine severity, precise daily medication intake, and utilization of OTC drugs. The calculation of a single NSAID’s exact dosage and the frequency of individual NSAIDs was impossible. Certain migraine therapies have diverse applications (e.g., anticonvulsants and antidepressants), leading to potential misclassification where patients might have been inaccurately categorized as receiving migraine treatment even if the treatment was intended to address another coexisting condition. Third, we could not track patients using insurance systems that were not included in the REZULT database.
Fourth, the exact isolation of patients exclusively experiencing migraines proved unfeasible due to the grouping of various headache types within a single category. Subsequent reevaluation focusing solely on migraines is a potential avenue for exploration. The observable frequency of headache-related conditions might have increased because of diagnostic assignments made for insurance purposes, with instances where ailment labels were retained or inadvertently omitted from removal. Correspondingly, the proportion of prescribed medications could have been inaccurately underestimated in cases where medical practitioners failed to designate migraines when explicitly prescribing triptan. Consequently, prudent consideration is needed when interpreting prevalence statistics.
Fifth, we could not evaluate patients with migraines who were not prescribed any medication. In addition, prescription patterns vary from country to country and topiramate and other alternative treatments [53] were not tracked in the current data. In addition, Japanese herbal Kampo medicines cannot be prescribed [16,28,54,55,56,57,58,59,60]. Finally, we will continue to monitor the alterations in this prescription trend in response to heightened headache awareness [34] and the advent of novel medications, including CGRP-related drugs [49,61,62] and lasmiditan [63,64].

5. Conclusions

We analyzed the prescription patterns for headaches using the REZULT database, a large health insurance database. Our findings indicated that of 1524 patients diagnosed with headaches, only 6.10% (93/1524) were prescribed prophylactic medications. Among the 1524 patients who received acute medications (NSAIDs or triptans), 11/1524 (0.72%) were identified as having triptans overprescribed. In our two-year longitudinal study involving 80,756 patients, 44/80,756 (0.05%) were found to have received excessive triptan prescriptions at least once during a 90-day period and 3408/80,756 (4.22%) patients with headache were prescribed prophylactic medications within a 90-day timeframe on at least one occasion. This study is the first to examine treatment patterns for headaches in children in detail from insurance claim data.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/life14010096/s1, Supplementary File S1: the codes for the drug price list (Excel file).

Author Contributions

M.K. analyzed and interpreted the patient data. T.I. and Y.Y. made the dataset. K.K. (Kenta Kashiwagi), S.K., A.K., T.G., K.K. (Kazuma Kaneko) and N.W. advised on the manuscript regarding neurological points. Y.M. advised on the manuscript regarding headache clinical practice. F.Y. supervised. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The study was funded by Bio-Medicines, Japan Drug Development & Medical Affairs at Eli Lilly Japan K.K.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The Itoigawa General Hospital Ethics Committee approved this study (approval numbers: 2022-2, 2022-10). All procedures adhered to the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki. The execution of Studies 1 and 2 followed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines.

Informed Consent Statement

The necessity for written informed consent was waived due to the study’s anonymous and retrospective nature.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

We are thankful for the medical staff.

Conflicts of Interest

Masahito Katsuki received personal consultancy fees from Amgen Astellas BioPharma K.K., Daiichi Sankyo Company, Limited, Eli Lilly Japan K.K., and Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. during the conduct of the study. Yasuhiko Matsumori received personal consultancy fees from Amgen Astellas BioPharma K.K., Daiichi Sankyo Company, Limited, Eli Lilly Japan K.K., and Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. during the conduct of the study. Taisuke Ichihara and Yuya Yamada are employees of Japan System Techniques Co., Ltd. The other authors report no conflicts of interest concerning the materials or methods used in this study or the findings presented in this paper. This article and contents of this study were not published nor presented previously.

Abbreviations

CGRPcalcitonin-gene-related peptide
CIconfidence interval
ICD-10International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems-10
ICHD-3International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition
NSAIDsnonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs
OTCover-the-counter
TTHtension-type headache

References

  1. Sakai, F.; Igarashi, H. Prevalence of migraine in Japan: A nationwide survey. Cephalalgia 1997, 17, 15–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Takeshima, T.; Ishizaki, K.; Fukuhara, Y.; Ijiri, T.; Kusumi, M.; Wakutani, Y.; Mori, M.; Kawashima, M.; Kowa, H.; Adachi, Y.; et al. Population-based door-to-door survey of migraine in Japan: The Daisen Study. Headache: J. Head. Face Pain. 2004, 44, 8–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Katsuki, M.; Yamagishi, C.; Matsumori, Y.; Koh, A.; Kawamura, S.; Kashiwagi, K.; Kito, T.; Entani, A.; Yamamoto, T.; Ikeda, T.; et al. Questionnaire-based survey on the prevalence of medication-overuse headache in Japanese one city-Itoigawa study. Neurol. Sci. 2022, 43, 3811–3822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Takeshima, T.; Wan, Q.; Zhang, Y.; Komori, M.; Stretton, S.; Rajan, N.; Treuer, T.; Ueda, K. Prevalence, burden, and clinical management of migraine in China, Japan, and South Korea: A comprehensive review of the literature. J. Headache Pain 2019, 20, 111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Leonardi, M. Burden of migraine: What should we say more? Neurol. Sci. 2015, 36, 1–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Vos, T.; Lim, S.S.; Abbafati, C.; Abbas, K.M.; Abbasi, M.; Abbasifard, M.; Abbasi-Kangervari, M.; Abbastabar, H.; Abd-Allah, F.; Abdelalim, A.; et al. Global burden of 369 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet 2020, 396, 1204–1222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Agosti, R. Migraine burden of disease: From the patient’s experience to a socio-economic view. Headache J. Head. Face Pain. 2018, 58, 17–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Kikui, S.; Chen, Y.; Todaka, H.; Asao, K.; Adachi, K.; Takeshima, T. Burden of migraine among Japanese patients: A cross-sectional National Health and Wellness Survey. J. Headache Pain 2020, 21, 110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Goadsby, P.J.; Constantin, L.; Ebel-Bitoun, C.; Turudic, I.I.; Hitier, S.; Amand-Bourdon, C.; Stewart, A. Multinational descriptive analysis of the real-world burden of headache using the Migraine Buddy application. Eur. J. Neurol. 2021, 28, 4184–4193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ford, J.H.; Jackson, J.; Milligan, G.; Cotton, S.; Ahl, J.; Aurora, S. A Real-World Analysis of Migraine: A Cross-Sectional Study of Disease Burden and Treatment Patterns. Headache 2017, 57, 1532–1544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Wöber-Bingöl, Ç.; Wöber, C.; Uluduz, D.; Uygunoğlu, U.; Aslan, T.S.; Kernmayer, M.; Zesch, H.-E.; Gerges, N.T.A.; Wagner, G.; Siva, A.; et al. The global burden of headache in children and adolescents—Developing a questionnaire and methodology for a global study. J. Headache Pain 2014, 15, 86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Genc, D.; Vaičienė-Magistris, N.; Zaborskis, A.; Şaşmaz, T.; Tunç, A.Y.; Uluduz, D.; Wöber, C.; Wöber-Bingöl, Ç.; Steiner, T.J. The burden attributable to headache disorders in children and adolescents in Lithuania: Estimates from a national schools-based study. J. Headache Pain 2021, 22, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Matsumori, Y.; Ueda, K.; Komori, M.; Zagar, A.J.; Kim, Y.; Jaffe, D.H.; Takeshima, T.; Hirata, K. Burden of Migraine in Japan: Results of the ObserVational Survey of the Epidemiology, tReatment, and Care Of MigrainE (OVERCOME [Japan]) Study. Neurol. Ther. 2022, 11, 205–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Katsuki, M.; Matsumori, Y.; Kawahara, J.; Yamagishi, C.; Koh, A.; Kawamura, S.; Kashiwagi, K.; Kito, T.; Oguri, M.; Mizuno, S.; et al. School-based online survey on chronic headache, migraine, and medication-overuse headache prevalence among children and adolescents in Japanese one city-Itoigawa Benizuwaigani study. Clin. Neurol. Neurosurg. 2023, 226, 107610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Philipp, J.; Zeiler, M.; Wöber, C.; Wagner, G.; Karwautz, A.F.K.; Steiner, T.J.; Wöber-Bingöl, Ç. Prevalence and burden of headache in children and adolescents in Austria—A nationwide study in a representative sample of pupils aged 10–18 years. J. Headache Pain 2019, 20, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Headache Clinical Practice Guideline Development Committee. Clinical Practice Guideline for Headache Disorders 2021 (Japanese); Igaku-Shoin: Tokyo, Japan, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  17. Katsuki, M.; Kashiwagi, K.; Kawamura, S.; Koh, A. The efficacy of Japanese herbal kampo medicine as an acute and prophylactic medication to treat chronic daily headache and medication overuse headache: -Single arm retrospective study. Cureus 2022, 14, e25419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Katsuki, M.; Kawahara, J.; Matsumori, Y.; Yamagishi, C.; Koh, A.; Kawamura, S.; Kashiwagi, K.; Kito, T.; Entani, A.; Yamamoto, T.; et al. Questionnaire-based survey during COVID-19 vaccination on the prevalence of elderly’s migraine, chronic daily headache, and medication-overuse headache in one Japanese city—Itoigawa Hisui Study. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 4707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Roxas, A.; Quiles, L.E.; Wang, S.-J. Delivery of care for migraine in the Asian Oceanian region: A cross-sectional study. Cephalalgia 2021, 41, 1348–1358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Woldeamanuel, Y.W. Headache in resource-Limited settings. Curr. Pain. Headache Rep. 2017, 21, 51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Katsarava, Z.; Mania, M.; Lampl, C.; Herberhold, J.; Steiner, T.J. Poor medical care for people with migraine in Europe—Evidence from the Eurolight study. J. Headache Pain 2018, 19, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Lipton, R.B.; Nicholson, R.A.; Reed, M.L.; Araujo, A.B.; Jaffe, D.H.; Faries, D.E.; Buse, D.C.; Shapiro, R.E.; Ashina, S.; Cambron-Mellott, M.J.; et al. Diagnosis, consultation, treatment, and impact of migraine in the US: Results of the OVERCOME (US) study. Headache J. Head Face Pain 2022, 62, 122–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Dekker, F.; Wiendels, N.J.; De Valk, V.; Van Der Vliet, C.; Neven, A.K.; Assendelft, W.J.J.; Ferrari, M.D. Triptan overuse in the Dutch general population: A nationwide pharmaco-epidemiology database analysis in 6.7 million people. Cephalalgia 2011, 31, 943–952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Huber, C.A.; Agosti, R.; Näpflin, M.; Blozik, E. Treatment patterns in patients using triptan and prophylactic medication: An analysis of clinical practice prior to the introduction of CGRP antagonists. J. Pain Res. 2019, 12, 2211–2221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Zebenholzer, K.; Gall, W.; Wöber, C. Use and overuse of triptans in Austria—A survey based on nationwide healthcare claims data. J. Headache Pain 2018, 19, 34 . [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Scuteri, D.; Adornetto, A.; Rombolà, L.; Naturale, M.D.; De Francesco, A.E.; Esposito, S.; Zito, M.; Morrone, L.A.; Bagetta, G.; Tonin, P.; et al. Pattern of triptans use: A retrospective prescription study in Calabria, Italy. Neural Regen. Res. 2020, 15, 1340–1343. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  27. Da Cas, R.; Nigro, A.; Terrazzino, S.; Sances, G.; Viana, M.; Tassorelli, C.; Nappi, G.; Cargnin, S.; Pisterna, A.; Traversa, G.; et al. Triptan use in Italy: Insights from administrative databases. Cephalalgia 2015, 35, 619–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Braunstein, D.; Donnet, A.; Pradel, V.; Sciortino, V.; Allaria-Lapierre, V.; Lantéri-Minet, M.; Micallef, J. Triptans use and overuse: A pharmacoepidemiology study from the French health insurance system database covering 4.1 million people. Cephalalgia 2015, 35, 1172–1180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Meyers, J.L.; Davis, K.L.; Lenz, R.A.; Sakai, F.; Xue, F. Treatment patterns and characteristics of patients with migraine in Japan: A retrospective analysis of health insurance claims data. Cephalalgia 2019, 39, 1518–1534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Sakai, F.; Hirata, K.; Igarashi, H.; Takeshima, T.; Nakayama, T.; Sano, H.; Kondo, H.; Shibasaki, T.; Koga, N. A study to investigate the prevalence of headache disorders and migraine among people registered in a health insurance association in Japan. J. Headache Pain 2022, 23, 70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Hirata, K.; Sano, H.; Kondo, H.; Shibasaki, Y.; Koga, N. Clinical characteristics, medication use, and impact of primary headache on daily activities: An observational study using linked online survey and medical claims data in Japan. BMC Neurol. 2023, 23, 80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Obermeier, V.; Murawski, M.; Heinen, F.; Landgraf, M.N.; Straube, A.; Von Kries, R.; Ruscheweyh, R. Total health insurance costs in children with a migraine diagnosis compared to a control group. J. Headache Pain 2021, 22, 140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Law, E.F.; Palermo, T.M.; Zhou, C.; Groenewald, C.B. Economic Impact of Headache and Psychiatric Comorbidities on Healthcare Expenditures Among Children in the United States: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study. Headache 2019, 59, 1504–1515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Katsuki, M.; Matsumori, Y.; Kawahara, J.; Yamagishi, C.; Koh, A.; Kawamura, S.; Kawashiwagi, K.; Kito, T.; Oguri, M.; Mizuno, S.; et al. Headache education by leaflet distribution during COVID-19 vaccination and school-based on-demand e-learning: Itoigawa Geopark Headache Awareness Campaign. Headache J. Head Face Pain 2023, 63, 429–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Takeshima, T.; Ueda, K.; Komori, M.; Zagar, A.Z.; Kim, Y.; Jaffe, D.H.; Matsumori, Y.; Hirata, K. Potential unmet needs in acute treatment of migraine in Japan: Results of the OVERCOME (Japan) study. Adv. Ther. 2022, 39, 5176–5190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Sakai, F.; Igarashi, H.; Yokoyama, M.; De Dahaem, O.B.; Kato, H.; Azuma, Y.; Koh, R.; Phillips, H.; Singh, N.; Craven, A.; et al. Diagnosis, knowledge, perception, and productivity impact of headache education and clinical evaluation program in the workplace at an information technology company of more than 70,000 employees. Cephalalgia 2023, 43, 3331024231165682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Shimizu, T.; Sakai, F.; Miyake, H.; Sone, T.; Sato, M.; Tanabe, S.; Azuma, Y.; Dodick, D.W. Disability, quality of life, productivity impairment and employer costs of migraine in the workplace. J. Headache Pain 2021, 22, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Wöber-Bingöl, C. Epidemiology of migraine and headache in children and adolescents. Curr. Pain. Headache Rep. 2013, 17, 341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Zewde, Y.Z.; Zebenigus, M.; Demissie, H.; Tekle-Haimanot, R.; Uluduz, D.; Şaşmaz, T.; Bozdag, F.; Steiner, T.J. The prevalence of headache disorders in children and adolescents in Ethiopia: A schools-based study. J. Headache Pain 2020, 21, 108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Luvsannorov, O.; Anisbayar, T.; Davaasuren, M.; Baatar, O.; Batmagnai, K.; Tumurbaatar, K.; Enkhbaatar, S.; Uluduz, D.; Şaşmaz, T.; Solmaz, E.T.; et al. The prevalence of headache disorders in children and adolescents in Mongolia: A nationwide schools-based study. J. Headache Pain 2020, 21, 107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Genc, D.; Vaičienė-Magistris, N.; Zaborskis, A.; Şaşmaz, T.; Tunç, A.Y.; Uluduz, D.; Steiner, T.J. The prevalence of headache disorders in children and adolescents in Lithuania: A schools-based study. J. Headache Pain 2020, 21, 73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kawatu, N.; Wa Somwe, S.; Ciccone, O.; Mukanzu, M.; Uluduz, D.; Şaşmaz, T.; Yalçın, B.N.B.; Wöber, C.; Steiner, T.J. The prevalence of primary headache disorders in children and adolescents in Zambia: A schools-based study. J. Headache Pain 2022, 23, 118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Wöber, C.; Wöber-Bingöl, Ç.; Uluduz, D.; Aslan, T.S.; Uygunoglu, U.; Tüfekçi, A.; Alp, S.I.; Duman, T.; Sürgün, F.; Emir, G.K.; et al. Undifferentiated headache: Broadening the approach to headache in children and adolescents, with supporting evidence from a nationwide school-based cross-sectional survey in Turkey. J. Headache Pain 2018, 19, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Togha, M.; Rafiee, P.; Ghorbani, Z.; Khosravi, A.; Şaşmaz, T.; Kale, D.A.; Uluduz, D.; Steiner, J.T. The prevalence of headache disorders in children and adolescents in Iran: A schools-based study. Cephalalgia 2022, 42, 1246–1254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Katsuki, M.; Shimazu, T.; Kikui, S.; Danno, D.; Miyahara, J.; Takeshima, R.; Takeshima, E.; Shimazu, Y.; Nakashima, T.; Matsuo, M.; et al. Developing an artificial intelligence-based headache diagnostic model and its utility for non-specialists’ diagnostic accuracy. Cephalalgia 2023, 43, 033310242311569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Cohen, F. The role of artificial intelligence in headache medicine: Potential and peril. Headache 2023, 63, 694–696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Sasaki, S.; Katsuki, M.; Kawahara, J.; Yamagishi, C.; Koh, A.; Kawamura, S.; Kashiwagi, K.; Ikeda, T.; Goto, T.; Kaneko, K.; et al. Developing an artificial intelligence-based pediatric and adolescent migraine diagnostic model. Cureus 2023, 15, e44415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Eli Lilly and Company. A Study of Galcanezumab (LY2951742) in Participants 6 to 17 Years of Age with Episodic Migraine (REBUILD-1). ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03432286. 2018. Available online: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03432286 (accessed on 10 October 2023).
  49. Szperka, C.L.; VanderPluym, J.; Orr, S.L.; Oakley, C.B.; Qubty, W.; Patniyot, I.; Lagman-Bartolome, A.M.; Morris, C.; Gautreaux, J.; Victorio, M.C.; et al. Recommendations on the use of anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies in children and adolescents. Headache 2018, 58, 1658–1669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Ishii, R.; Schwedt, T.J.; Trivedi, M.; Dumkrieger, G.; Cortex, M.M.; Brennan, K.C.; Digre, K.; Dodick, D.W. Mild traumatic brain injury affects the features of migraine. J. Headache Pain 2021, 22, 80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Hashimoto, Y.; Matsushige, T.; Kawano, R.; Yoshiyama, M.; Hara, T.; Kobayashi, S.; Ono, C.; Sakamoto, S.; Horie, N. Headache characteristics to screen for cervicocerebral artery dissection in patients with acute onset unusual headache. Headache 2023, 63, 283–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Kano, Y.; Inui, S.; Oguri, T.; Kato, H.; Yuasa, H.; Morimot, S.; Sakurai, K. Utility of T2-weighted high-resolution vessel wall imaging for the diagnosis of isolated posterior inferior cerebellar artery dissection at acute and early subacute stages. J. Neurol. Sci. 2020, 411, 116693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Fukazawa, R.; Ishii, R.; Higashimoto, Y.; Hanya, M.; Shimizu, Y.; Shinomoto, M.; Fujii, A.; Mizuno, T. Zinc administration favorably affects prophylactic therapy-refractory migraine attacks: A case series. Intern. Med. 2023, 6, 2111–2123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Hepp, Z.; Dodick, D.W.; Varon, S.F.; Chia, J.; Matthew, N.; Gillard, P.; Hansen, R.N.; Devine, E.B. Persistence and switching patterns of oral migraine prophylactic medications among patients with chronic migraine: A retrospective claims analysis. Cephalalgia 2017, 37, 470–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Hepp, Z.; Dodick, D.W.; Varon, S.F.; Gillard, P.; Hansen, R.N.; Devine, E.B. Adherence to oral migraine-preventive medications among patients with chronic migraine. Cephalalgia 2015, 35, 478–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Woolley, J.M.; Bonafede, M.M.; Maiese, B.A.; Lenz, R.A. Migraine prophylaxis and acute treatment patterns among commercially insured patients in the United States. Headache 2017, 57, 1399–1408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Thomsen, R.W.; Szépligeti, S.K.; Xue, F.; Pedersen, L.; Sørensen, H.T.; Ehrenstein, V. Patterns of initial migraine treatment in Denmark: A population-based study. Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. 2019, 28, 322–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Korolainen, M.A.; Kurki, S.; Lassenius, M.I.; Toppila, I.; Costa-Scharplatz, M.; Purmonen, T.; Nissilä, M. Burden of migraine in Finland: Health care resource use, sick-leaves and comorbidities in occupational health care. J. Headache Pain 2019, 20, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Perrone, V.; Veronesi, C.; Giacomini, E.; Andretta, M.; Dell’Orco, S.; De Sarro, G.; Lena, F.; Menti, A.M.; Naclerio, M.; Ritrovato, D.; et al. Treatment patterns, health resource consumption, and costs of patients with migraine in an Italian real-world setting. Curr. Med. Res. Opin. 2020, 36, 1991–1998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ojo, A.; Zhang, S.; Bleibdrey, N.; Zimskind, D.; Keshvanni, N.; Chalmers, R. Persistence and switching patterns of migraine prophylactic medications in Canada: A retrospective claims analysis comparing adherence and evaluating the economic burden of illness. J. Pharm. Pharm. Sci. 2023, 25, 402–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Ihara, K.; Ohtani, S.; Watanabe, N.; Takahashi, N.; Miyazaki, N.; Ishizuchi, K.; Hori, S.; Takemura, R.; Nakahara, J.; Takizawa, T. Predicting response to CGRP-monoclonal antibodies in patients with migraine in Japan: A single-centre retrospective observational study. J. Headache Pain 2023, 24, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Katsuki, M.; Kashiwagi, K.; Kawamura, S.; Koh, A. Monoclonal antibodies against the calcitonin gene-related peptide and its receptor in Japanese adolescents with migraines. Cureus 2023, 15, e33689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Tsai, M.; Nery, E.S.M.; Kerr, L.; Khanna, R.; Komori, M.; Dennehy, E.B.; Wilbraham, D.; Winner, P. Pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability of lasmiditan in pediatric patients with migraine. Clin. Pharmacokinet. 2021, 60, 819–828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Loh, N.R.; Whitehouse, W.P.; Howells, R. What is new in migraine management in children and young people? Arch. Dis. Child. 2022, 107, 1067–1072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Life 14 00096 g001
Figure 1. Kaplan–Meier curves for prescription of prophylactic treatment during the two years from the initial diagnosis. Trends in the prescription of prophylactic medication in patients with a persisting headache diagnosis for two years from the initial diagnosis.
Figure 1. Kaplan–Meier curves for prescription of prophylactic treatment during the two years from the initial diagnosis. Trends in the prescription of prophylactic medication in patients with a persisting headache diagnosis for two years from the initial diagnosis.
Life 14 00096 g001
Life 14 00096 g002
Figure 2. Kaplan–Meier curves for the overprescription of triptans during the two years from the initial diagnosis. Trends in overprescription in patients with a persisting headache diagnosis for two years from the initial diagnosis.
Figure 2. Kaplan–Meier curves for the overprescription of triptans during the two years from the initial diagnosis. Trends in overprescription in patients with a persisting headache diagnosis for two years from the initial diagnosis.
Life 14 00096 g002
Table 1. Treatment pattern for headache patients aged 6–11 years.
Table 1. Treatment pattern for headache patients aged 6–11 years.
CharacteristicsOverall%/SDA w/o P%/SDT w/o P%/SDA w/P%/SDT w/P%/SD
Patients number624100%60797.28%40.64%172.72%10.16%
Number of triptan overprescriptions (%)10.11%10.17%125.00%00%00%
Age (mean, SD)8.831.678.811.6710.250.259.471.6710-
Sex: Female31450.32%30550.25%325.00%952.94%1100%
Acute treatment
Combination NSAIDs10.16%10.17%--00%--
Single NSAIDs61899.04%60299.18%--1694.12%--
Triptans30.48%20.33%250.00%15.88%1100%
Single NSAIDs and triptans20.32%20.33%250.00%00%--
Prophylactic treatment172.72%----17100%1100%
Calcium-channel blockers (lomerizine)10.16%----15.88%--
Antidepressants (amitriptyline)10.16%----15.88%--
Japanese herbal Kampo medicine142.24%----1482.35%1100%
Anticonvulsants and Kampo medicine10.16%----15.88%--
A, acute treatment; NSAIDs, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; P, prophylactic treatment; SD, standard deviation; T, triptans.
Table 2. Treatment pattern for headache patients aged 12–17 years.
Table 2. Treatment pattern for headache patients aged 12–17 years.
CharacteristicsOverall%/SDA w/o P%/SDT w/o P%/SDA w/P%/SDT w/P%/SD
Patients number900100%82491.56%637.00%768.44%283.11%
Number of combination NSAID overprescriptions (%)60.67%50.61%00.00%00.00%13.57%
Number of triptan overprescriptions (%)101.11%50.61%57.94%56.58%517.86%
Age (mean, SD)14.251.6614.201.6514.161.6314.761.6515.111.63
Sex: Female47953.22%42851.94%3961.91%5167.11%2071.43%
Acute treatment
Combination NSAIDs131.44%101.21%--33.95%--
Single NSAIDs79388.11%74990.90%--4457.90%--
Triptans556.11%425.10%4266.67%1317.11%1346.43%
Combination NSAIDs and single NSAIDs30.33%20.24%--11.32%--
Single NSAIDs and triptans313.44%182.18%1828.57%1317.11%1346.43%
All 3 types50.56%30.36%34.76%22.63%27.14%
Prophylactic treatment768.44%----76100% 100%
Calcium-channel blockers (lomerizine)171.89%----1722.37%1035.71%
Beta-blockers (propranolol)10.11%----11.32%13.57%
Anticonvulsants (valproic acid)151.67%----1519.74%517.67%
Antidepressants (amitriptyline)30.33%----33.95%310.71%
Japanese herbal Kampo medicine273.00%----2735.53%13.57%
Combination of 2 types121.33%----1215.79% 28.57%
Combination of 4 types10.11%----11.32% 0%
A, acute treatment; d, days; NSAIDs, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; P, prophylactic treatment; SD, standard deviation; T, triptans; tbl, tablets.
Table 3. Treatment pattern of triptans for 6–17-year-old patients.
Table 3. Treatment pattern of triptans for 6–17-year-old patients.
CharacteristicsOverall%/SD0–11 tbl/90 d%/SD12–29 tbl/90 d%/SD30–44 tbl/90 d%/SD45– tbl/90 d%/SD
n (all = 1524)96100%6466.67%2121.88%99.38%22.08%
Number of tbl/90 d22.7721.58 6.782.85 195715.56 35.755.0662.50-
Age (mean, SD)14.231.80 14.141.72 14.431.71 14.441.7714.00-
Sex: Female6062.50%3859.38%1152.38%9100%2100%
Acute treatment
Triptans5860.42%4062.50%1466.67%333.33%150%
Single NSAIDs and triptans3334.38%2132.81%523.81%666.67%150%
All 3 types55.21%34.69%29.52%00%00%
Prophylactic treatment2930.21%914.06%1571.43%444.44%150%
Calcium-channel blockers (lomerizine)1010.42%46.25%419.05%111.11%150%
Beta-blockers (propranolol)11.04%11.56%00%00%00%
Anticonvulsants (valproic acid)55.21%11.56%419.05%00%00%
Antidepressants (amitriptyline)33.13%11.56%00%222.22%00%
Japanese herbal Kampo medicine22.08%23.13%00%00%00%
Combination of 2 types88.33%00%733.33%111.11%00%
d, days; NSAIDs, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; SD, standard deviation; tbl, tablets.
Table 4. Changes in prescribing patterns over time for patients aged 6–11 years (n = 43,621).
Table 4. Changes in prescribing patterns over time for patients aged 6–11 years (n = 43,621).
Variables1–3 m4–6 m7–9 m10–12 m13–15 m16–18 m19–21 m22–24 m
No prescription86.70%89.95%88.70%87.98%88.05%88.18%86.63%86.58%
Acute treatment12.92%9.68%10.90%11.55%11.43%11.28%12.78%12.79%
Single NSAIDs12.88%9.65%10.84%11.50%11.37%11.19%12.68%12.69%
Combination NSAIDs0.02%0.01%0.02%0.01%0.01%0.03%0.03%0.03%
Triptans0.05%0.05%0.06%0.05%0.08%0.11%0.13%0.14%
Combination NSAIDs ≥ 30 tbl/90 d0.01%0%0%0%0%0%0.01%0%
Triptans ≥ 30 tbl/90 d0.01%0%0%0.01%0%0.01%0.01%0%
Both acute and prophylactic treatments0.16%0.17%0.20%0.18%0.26%0.23%0.24%0.31%
Prophylactic treatment0.54%0.53%0.61%0.64%0.78%0.77%0.83%0.94%
Calcium-channel blockers (lomerizine)0.01%0.01%0.01%0.02%0.03%0.03%0.04%0.06%
Beta-blockers (propranolol)0.01%0.01%0.00%0.01%0.01%0.02%0.01%0.02%
Anticonvulsants (valproic acid)0.03%0.07%0.10%0.11%0.15%0.19%0.23%0.26%
Antidepressants (amitriptyline)0.02%0.02%0.02%0.02%0.03%0.03%0.03%0.04%
Japanese herbal Kampo medicine0.48%0.43%0.49%0.49%0.58%0.51%0.54%0.59%
d, days; m, months; NSAIDs, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; tbl, tablets.
Table 5. Changes in prescribing patterns over time for patients aged 12–17 years (n = 37,135).
Table 5. Changes in prescribing patterns over time for patients aged 12–17 years (n = 37,135).
Variables1–3 m4–6 m7–9 m10–12 m13–15 m16–18 m19–21 m22–24 m
No prescription87.91%92.17%91.25%90.87%90.91%90.89%90.56%90.47%
Acute treatment11.66%7.38%8.20%8.54%8.39%8.46%8.69%8.74%
Single NSAIDs11.32%7.13%7.90%8.21%8.03%8.04%8.26%8.35%
Combination NSAIDs0.14%0.09%0.08%0.09%0.11%0.11%0.14%0.12%
Triptans0.33%0.28%0.38%0.36%0.41%0.44%0.48%0.47%
Combination NSAIDs ≥ 30 tbl/90 d0.02%0.01%0.01%0.01%0.02%0.03%0.02%0.02%
Triptans ≥ 30 tbl/90 d0.00%0.00%0.02%0.02%0.02%0.02%0.02%0.01%
Both acute and prophylactic treatments0.32%0.27%0.32%0.41%0.37%0.47%0.47%0.52%
Prophylactic treatment0.75%0.71%0.88%1.00%1.07%1.12%1.23%1.31%
Calcium-channel blockers (lomerizine)0.06%0.08%0.14%0.16%0.15%0.17%0.18%0.24%
Beta-blockers (propranolol)0.01%0.02%0.03%0.04%0.05%0.05%0.04%0.05%
Anticonvulsants (valproic acid)0.08%0.13%0.19%0.24%0.26%0.32%0.37%0.39%
Antidepressants (amitriptyline)0.02%0.02%0.04%0.07%0.09%0.09%0.08%0.08%
Calcium-channel blockers (verapamil)0%0%0%0.01%0.01%0.01%0.01%0.01%
Japanese herbal Kampo medicine0.60%0.50%0.52%0.54%0.58%0.57%0.62%0.64%
d, days; m, months; NSAIDs, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; tbl, tablets.
Table 6. Cox regression analyses results for triptan overprescription.
Table 6. Cox regression analyses results for triptan overprescription.
6–11-Year-Olds, n = 43,621, Event = 12 (0.0275%)BSEWaldp-ValueOdds95%CI (Lower)(Upper)
Female0.040.680.000.9601.040.263.90
Age (y.o.)0.400.223.150.0761.490.962.30
Presence of a prescription of single NSAID during the first 90 days−0.271.060.060.8030.770.106.15
Combination NSAIDs during the first 90 days (tbl/90 d)−5.8614,794.230.000.9990.000.00Inf.
Triptans during the first 90 days (tbl/90 d)0.460.0663.94<0.0011.581.411.77
Presence of a prophylactic treatment prescription during the first 90 days−12.83674.210.000.9850.000.00Inf.
12–17-Year-Olds, n = 37,135, Event = 32 (0.0862%)BSEWaldp-ValueOdds95%CI (Lower)(Upper)
Female0.600.451.810.1781.820.764.38
Age (y.o.)−1.4751.400.000.980.230.001.30 × 1043
Presence of a prescription of a single NSAID during the first 90 days 0.160.0340.79<0.0011.171.121.23
Combination NSAIDs during the first 90 days (tbl/90 d)2.390.5817.07<0.00110.873.5033.70
Triptans during the first 90 days (tbl/90 d)0.480.401.470.2251.620.743.51
Presence of a prophylactic treatment prescription during the first 90 days−0.020.110.050.8240.980.791.21
B, slope; CI, confidence interval; d, days; SD, standard deviation; SE, standard error; tbl, tablets; NSAIDs, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Katsuki, M.; Matsumori, Y.; Ichihara, T.; Yamada, Y.; Kawamura, S.; Kashiwagi, K.; Koh, A.; Goto, T.; Kaneko, K.; Wada, N.; et al. Treatment Patterns for and Characteristics of Headache in Children and Adolescents Aged 6–17 Years in Japan: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Analysis of Health Insurance Claims Data. Life 2024, 14, 96. https://doi.org/10.3390/life14010096

AMA Style

Katsuki M, Matsumori Y, Ichihara T, Yamada Y, Kawamura S, Kashiwagi K, Koh A, Goto T, Kaneko K, Wada N, et al. Treatment Patterns for and Characteristics of Headache in Children and Adolescents Aged 6–17 Years in Japan: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Analysis of Health Insurance Claims Data. Life. 2024; 14(1):96. https://doi.org/10.3390/life14010096

Chicago/Turabian Style

Katsuki, Masahito, Yasuhiko Matsumori, Taisuke Ichihara, Yuya Yamada, Shin Kawamura, Kenta Kashiwagi, Akihito Koh, Tetsuya Goto, Kazuma Kaneko, Naomichi Wada, and et al. 2024. "Treatment Patterns for and Characteristics of Headache in Children and Adolescents Aged 6–17 Years in Japan: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Analysis of Health Insurance Claims Data" Life 14, no. 1: 96. https://doi.org/10.3390/life14010096

APA Style

Katsuki, M., Matsumori, Y., Ichihara, T., Yamada, Y., Kawamura, S., Kashiwagi, K., Koh, A., Goto, T., Kaneko, K., Wada, N., & Yamagishi, F. (2024). Treatment Patterns for and Characteristics of Headache in Children and Adolescents Aged 6–17 Years in Japan: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Analysis of Health Insurance Claims Data. Life, 14(1), 96. https://doi.org/10.3390/life14010096

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop