Abstract
Responsive to treatment individually, chronic migraine remains strikingly resistant collectively, incurring the second-highest population burden of disability worldwide. A heterogeneity of responsiveness, requiring prolonged—currently heuristic— individual evaluation of available treatments, may reflect a diversity of causal mechanisms, or the failure to identify the most important, single causal factor. Distinguishing between these possibilities, now possible through the application of complex modelling to large-scale data, is critical to determining the optimal approach to identifying new interventions in migraine and making the best use of existing ones.
Examining a richly phenotyped cohort of 1446 consecutive unselected patients with chronic migraine, here we use causal multitask Gaussian process models to estimate individual treatment effects across ten classes of preventatives. Such modelling enables us to quantify the accessibility of heterogeneous responsiveness to high-dimensional modelling, to infer the likely scale of the underlying causal diversity. We calculate the treatment effects in the overall population, and the conditional treatment effects among those modelled to respond and compare the true response rates between these two groups. Identifying a difference in response rates between the groups supports a diversity of causal mechanisms. Moreover, we propose a data-driven machine prescription policy, estimating the time-to-response when sequentially trialing preventatives by individualized treatment effects and compare it to expert guideline sequences. All model performances are quantified out-of-sample.
We identify significantly higher true response rates among individuals modelled to respond, compared to the overall population (mean difference of 0.034; 95% CI 0.003 to 0.065; p=0.033), supporting significant heterogeneity of responsiveness and diverse causal mechanisms. The machine prescription policy yields an estimated 35% reduction in time-to-response (3.750 months; 95% CI 3.507 to 3.993; p<0.0001) compared with expert guidelines, with no substantive increase in expense per patient.
We conclude that the highly distributed mode of causation in chronic migraine necessitates high-dimensional modelling for optimal management. Machine prescription should be considered an essential clinical decision-support tool in the future management of chronic migraine.
Competing Interest Statement
Dr Stubberud reports grants from Samarbeidsorganet Midt-Norge, during the conduct of the study; other from Nordic Brain Tech AS, outside the submitted work; In addition, Dr Stubberud has a patent mHealth Biofeedback treatment concept for episodic migraine pending. Dr Gray has nothing to disclose. Dr Tronvik reports grants from The Central Norway Regional Health Authority (RHA), during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Advisory Boards TEVA, Novartis, Allergan, Eli-Lilly, personal fees from Lectures TEVA, Novartis, Eli-Lilly, from Headache research institutional grants from the Norwegian Research Council, Nordforsk, EU-grant., other from Shareholder of Nordic Brain Tech AS, other from Shareholder and Borad member of Palion Medical AS, outside the submitted work;. Dr Matharu reports grants, personal fees and served on the advisory board for Allergan, served on the advisory board for Novartis, personal fees and served on the advisory board for Eli Lilly, personal fees and served on the advisory board for TEVA, grants from Abbott, grants from Medtronic, outside the submitted work; In addition, Dr Matharu has a patent WO2018051103A1 issued. Professor Nachev has nothing to disclose.
Funding Statement
Funded by the ULCH NIHR Biomedical Research Centre and the Wellcome Trust.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study was performed under NRES approval by the London-West London & GTAC Research Ethics Committee for the consentless analysis of irrevocably anonymized data.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The raw data required to replicate this study is not availble for public release under the conditions of ethical approval. The code used in this study is available upon reasonable request to the authors.