Zhurnal nevrologii i psikhiatrii imeni S.S. Korsakova · 2021
[Migraine in the real-life clinical practice: results of the observational study of diagnosis and treatment patterns in the urban population of the Russian Federation].
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Оригинал на русском
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Tabeeva G R, Katsarava Z, Dmitriev G V, Lyubovnaya Y O, Kovalchuk N A
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Analysis of real-life clinical practice data regarding the patterns of diagnosis and treatment of migraine in the Russian Federation.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: An observational real-world cohort study was conducted from January 2013 to December 2018 (over a 5-year period) to analyze the electronic database of 5 large private clinic chains in Moscow and St. Petersburg.
RESULTS: Among 1.15 million people who sought medical care, «G43 Migraine» diagnosis was established in 6.650 people, which accounted for 0.6%. A total of 54% of patients were diagnosed by a neurologist, while 35% by a GP. In roughly half the cases, to diagnose migraine, the doctors had to resort to additional methods of examination. While 53% of patients had indications for preventive treatment, it was prescribed only to 12% of those. Of these, the treatment strategy chosen for 29% of patients was changed: either the intragroup/intergroup switching of the medicinal product took place, or the combined treatment was prescribed.
CONCLUSION: In the real-life outpatient clinical practice, the level of diagnosis of migraine is extremely low. Additional methods of examination are excessively used for the diagnosis of migraine. The insufficient use of preventive medication and common use of therapies with unsubstantiated efficacy in migraine result in frequent changes in the treatment strategy.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: An observational real-world cohort study was conducted from January 2013 to December 2018 (over a 5-year period) to analyze the electronic database of 5 large private clinic chains in Moscow and St. Petersburg.
RESULTS: Among 1.15 million people who sought medical care, «G43 Migraine» diagnosis was established in 6.650 people, which accounted for 0.6%. A total of 54% of patients were diagnosed by a neurologist, while 35% by a GP. In roughly half the cases, to diagnose migraine, the doctors had to resort to additional methods of examination. While 53% of patients had indications for preventive treatment, it was prescribed only to 12% of those. Of these, the treatment strategy chosen for 29% of patients was changed: either the intragroup/intergroup switching of the medicinal product took place, or the combined treatment was prescribed.
CONCLUSION: In the real-life outpatient clinical practice, the level of diagnosis of migraine is extremely low. Additional methods of examination are excessively used for the diagnosis of migraine. The insufficient use of preventive medication and common use of therapies with unsubstantiated efficacy in migraine result in frequent changes in the treatment strategy.