Advocacy Connection Team-Now educational program for headache fellows and patients/caregivers: Assessment of educational objectives

OBJECTIVE

To assess for improvement in comfort in participating in advocacy for migraine and headache disorders and knowledge needed for successful advocacy.

BACKGROUND

The Advocacy Connection Team (ACT)-Now program is an educational program offered through Miles for Migraine, a non-profit advocacy organization. It is designed to teach headache fellows and patients advocacy skills.

METHODS

In a cross-sectional pre-test-post-test design, the 2021 ACT-Now cohort of 98 participants were administered a set of 11 pre-course survey questions identifying their role (healthcare provider/headache fellow or patient/caregiver), baseline knowledge of migraine-related disability and stigma, and baseline engagement and comfort with advocating. The post-course survey questions were the same as the pre-course questions, with the addition of one question assessing knowledge of migraine-related disability, additional questions addressing comfort levels advocating with insurance and policymakers, as well as creating an advocacy plan.

RESULTS

For the pre-course survey, 69 participants responded and for the post-course survey, 40 participants responded. Compared to the pre-course survey, participants were able to correctly identify epidemiological data about migraine following the ACT-Now course (pre-course 46% correct, post-course 58% correct, p = 0.263). There was also an increase in the comfort level of participants in advocacy activities, including the creation of an advocacy action plan (pre-course 23% were "very comfortable" advocating, post-course 63%, p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

These results demonstrate that ACT-Now is effective at improving advocacy skills in a mixed cohort of patients and headache fellows, giving them the skills to create advocacy plans and engage with other patients and physicians, payers, and policymakers to create a more understanding, equitable and compassionate world for persons with migraine and other headache diseases.

Stigma and Migraine: Developing Effective Interventions

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Migraine and other primary headache disorders do not receive adequate research funding, medical resources, or other forms of structural support relative to their prevalence and the disability they cause. In recent research, scholars have argued that stigma associated with headache disorders explains some of this discrepancy. This review will discuss (1) the factors contributing to stigma toward migraine and other primary headache disorders, (2) how structural and enacted stigma may perpetuate individual disability, (3) the impact of internalized stigma, and (4) interventions to mitigate stigma toward headache disorders with an emphasis on outcome monitoring. The review will also propose new areas of stigma research in need of further investigation.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent research shows that discrimination can exacerbate chronic pain. Stigma profoundly affects everything from the allocation of federal research funds and healthcare resources to individual patients' self-efficacy and ability to care for themselves. Understanding the stigma of migraine and learning how to develop effective interventions to mitigate this stigma will increase access to appropriate migraine care, improve healthcare providers' ability to care for their migraine patients, and help advocates reverse policies that discriminate against those with migraine. It is important to closely monitor outcomes of anti-stigma efforts for both positive and negative consequences and take note of outcomes and "lessons learned" from anti-stigma campaigns for other diseases.

Comparison of healthcare resource utilization and costs among patients with migraine with potentially adequate and insufficient triptan response

Background

Triptans are the most commonly prescribed acute treatments for migraine; however, not all triptan users experience adequate response. Information on real-world resource use and costs associated with triptan insufficient response are limited.

Methods

A retrospective claims analysis using US commercial health plan data between 2012 and 2015 assessed healthcare resource use and costs in adults with a migraine diagnosis newly initiating triptans. Patients who either did not refill triptans but used other non-triptan medications or refilled triptans but also filled non-triptan medications over a 24-month follow-up period were designated as potential triptan insufficient responders. Patients who continued filling only triptans (i.e. triptan-only continuers) were designated as potential adequate responders. All-cause and migraine-related resource use and total (medical and pharmacy) costs over months 1–12 and months 13–24 were compared between triptan-only continuers and potential triptan insufficient responders.

Results

Among 10,509 new triptan users, 4371 (41%) were triptan-only continuers, 3102 (30%) were potential triptan insufficient responders, and 3036 (29%) did not refill their index triptan or fill non-triptan medications over 24 months’ follow-up. Opioids were the most commonly used non-triptan treatment (68%) among potential triptan insufficient responders over 24 months of follow-up. Adjusted mean all-cause and migraine-related total costs were $5449 and $2905 higher, respectively, among potential triptan insufficient responders versus triptan-only continuers over the first 12 months.

Conclusions

In a US commercial health plan, almost one-third of new triptan users were potential triptan insufficient responders and the majority filled opioid prescriptions. Potential triptan insufficient responder patients had significantly higher all-cause and migraine-related healthcare utilization and costs than triptan-only continuers.

Migraine Patients With Cardiovascular Disease and Contraindications: An Analysis of Real-World Claims Data

INTRODUCTION

Triptans, the most commonly prescribed acute treatments for migraine attacks are, per FDA labeling, contraindicated in cardiovascular (CV) disease patients and have warnings and precautions for those with CV risk factors.

METHODS

Headache specialists, cardiologists, and health economics and outcomes researchers convened to identify diagnostic codes for: (1) CV diseases contraindicating triptans based on FDA labeling; (2) conditions comprising "other significant underlying CV disease"; and (3) CV risk factors included as warnings and precautions for triptans. A retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of commercially insured adult US migraine patients in the 2017 Optum® Clinformatics® Data Mart (CDM) and the 2017 IBM® Watson Health MarketScan® Commercial Claims database was used to estimate the proportion of migraine patients with CV contraindications and warnings and precautions to triptans.

RESULTS

Of the 56,662 migraine patients analyzed from Optum CDM, 13.5% had ≥1 CV disease as specified in triptan labeling and an additional 8.5% had ≥1 "other CV disease" judged by the panel to constitute a "significant underlying CV disease" (total: 22.0% migraine patients). Of 176 724 migraine patients analyzed from MarketScan, 12.2% had ≥1 CV disease as specified in the labeling and an additional 8.0% had ≥1 "other significant underlying CV disease" (total: 20.2% of migraine patients). An additional 25.4% and 25.1% of migraine patients had ≥2 CV risk factors in Optum CDM and MarketScan. In total, 47.4% and 45.3% of migraine patients in both databases had a CV disease specified as a contraindication, an "other CV disease" endorsed as significant, or ≥2 CV risk factors identified as warnings and precautions to triptans.

CONCLUSIONS

Analyses of more than 230,000 people with migraine showed that ≥20% of commercially insured US migraine patients have a CV condition that specifically contraindicates triptan treatment, and an additional 25% have ≥2 CV risk factors identified as warnings and precautions to triptans.

Effects of onabotulinumtoxinA treatment in chronic migraine patients with and without daily headache at baseline: results from the COMPEL Study

BACKGROUND

OnabotulinumtoxinA is effective in preventing chronic migraine (CM); however, the benefit of onabotulinumtoxinA in patients with CM with daily headache is unknown because these patients are typically excluded from clinical trials. This subanalysis of the COMPEL Study assessed the efficacy and safety of onabotulinumtoxinA in people with CM with and without daily headache.

METHODS

In total, 715 patients received onabotulinumtoxinA 155 U with or without concomitant oral preventive treatment. Patients who had complete daily diary records for the 28 days of the baseline period were stratified based on daily headache status. The primary outcome variable was reduction in headache-day frequency per 28-day period at 108 weeks (after 9 treatment cycles) relative to baseline. Exploratory outcomes included moderate to severe headache days, migraine disability (using the Migraine Disability Assessment [MIDAS] questionnaire), and health-related quality of life (Migraine-Specific Quality-of-Life Questionnaire v2 [MSQ]). Adverse events and their relatedness were recorded.

RESULTS

Overall, 641 patients had complete daily diary records at baseline. In patients with daily headache (n = 138) versus without (n = 503), treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA was associated with a significant mean (SD) reduction in 28-day headache-day frequency relative to baseline at week 108 (- 10.5 [9.2] vs - 12.2 [6.7], respectively; both P < 0.001) with no significant between-group difference (P = 0.132). The mean (SD) reduction in moderate to severe headache days at week 108 was significant in patients with and without daily headache (- 11.5 [9.4] and - 9.9 [6.4]; P < 0.001) with no significant between-group difference (P = 0.153). Mean (SD) MIDAS scores significantly improved from baseline at week 108 (- 43.3 [73.4] and - 43.6 [46.7]; both P < 0.001), with no significant between-group difference (P = 0.962). Similarly, mean (SD) MSQ subscale scores significantly improved from baseline at week 108 for patients with and without daily headache. OnabotulinumtoxinA was well tolerated in patients with and without daily headache.

CONCLUSION

Results indicate that onabotulinumtoxinA is associated with reductions from baseline in headache-day frequency and improvements in disability and quality of life for up to 108 weeks in people with CM with daily headache; however, a longer duration of treatment was required to fully realize the treatment effect on headache. No new safety concerns were identified.

Effects of onabotulinumtoxinA treatment in patients with and without allodynia: results of the COMPEL study

Background

OnabotulinumtoxinA is effective in treating chronic migraine (CM), but there are limited data assessing how allodynia affects preventive treatment responses. This subanalysis of the 108-week, multicenter, open-label COMPEL Study assessed the efficacy and safety of onabotulinumtoxinA in people with CM with and without allodynia.

Methods

Patients (n = 715) were treated with onabotulinumtoxinA 155 U every 12 weeks for 9 treatment cycles. The Allodynia Symptom Checklist was used to identify patients with allodynia (scores ≥3). The primary outcome for this subanalysis was reduction in monthly headache days from baseline for weeks 105 to 108 in groups with and without allodynia. Other outcomes included assessments of moderate to severe headache days, disability (using the Migraine Disability Assessment [MIDAS] questionnaire), and health-related quality of life (Migraine-Specific Quality-of-Life Questionnaire [MSQ] v2). Adverse events and their relation to treatment were recorded.

Results

OnabotulinumtoxinA was associated with a significant mean (SD) reduction in headache day frequency at week 108 relative to baseline in patients with (n = 289) and without (n = 426) allodynia (− 10.8 [7.1] and − 12.5 [7.4], respectively; both P < 0.001) that was significantly greater in patients without allodynia (P = 0.044 between-subgroup comparison). Moderate to severe headache days were significantly reduced at week 108 in patients with and without allodynia (− 9.6 [6.9] and − 10.5 [7.2]; both P < 0.001); reduction was similar between groups. MIDAS scores improved significantly at week 108 (− 53.0 [50.3] and − 37.7 [53.0]; both P < 0.001), with a significant between-group difference in favor of those with allodynia (P = 0.005). Similarly, MSQ subscale scores (Role Function Preventive, Role Function Restrictive, Emotional Function) significantly improved at week 108 for patients with and without allodynia: 20.6 (21.9) and 16.9 (20.7), 28.0 (23.3) and 24.7 (22.7), and 27.6 (26.5) and 24.9 (26.1), respectively (all P < 0.001). OnabotulinumtoxinA was well tolerated in patients with and without allodynia.

Conclusion

Results indicate that onabotulinumtoxinA is associated with reductions from baseline in multiple efficacy outcomes for up to 108 weeks whether or not allodynia is present. The allodynia group showed a smaller treatment response for reduction in headache days, but a similar or greater treatment response for improvement in other measures. No new safety concerns were identified.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s10194-018-0952-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Comparison of Dynamic (Brush) and Static (Pressure) Mechanical Allodynia in Migraine

Allodynia has been described in migraine but has not been fully investigated for the different sensory modalities. The aim of this study was to compare the prevalence of dynamic (brush) and static (pressure) mechanical allodynia in migraine patients and to suggest a practical method of testing them in a clinical setting. Patients with International Headache Society-defined episodic migraine (EM) or with transformed migraine (TM) as defined by Silberstein and Lipton were prospectively recruited from the Jefferson Headache Center out-patient clinic. A questionnaire of migraine features and symptoms of allodynia was administered. Brush allodynia (BA) was tested by cutaneous stimulation with a gauze pad and pressure allodynia (PA) was tested using von Frey hairs (VFH). The prevalence of BA and PA in all patients and in the different subgroups was calculated and correlated with migraine features. We recruited 55 migraine patients. Twenty-five had EM and 30 had TM. BA was present in 18 (32.7±) patients and PA in 18–24 (32.7–43.6±). Allodynia to both brush and pressure was found in 13–17 (23.6–30.9±) patients. If a patient had allodynia to one modality only, it was more likely to be PA than BA. Both BA and PA were more common in patients with TM compared with those with EM [BA 46.7± vs. 16.0±; PA (differences significant for the medium and thick VFHs) 50± vs. 20± and 50± vs. 12±, respectively]. Both types of allodynia were also more common in patients with migraine with aura compared with those with migraine without aura (BA 57.1± vs. 17.6±; PA 57.1–61.9± vs. 17.6–32.7±). There was a positive correlation between allodynia score (as obtained by examination) and allodynia index (as obtained by history) for both BA and PA. The incomplete, although considerable, overlap between BA and PA suggests that allodynia to different sensory modalities is associated with sensitization of different neuronal populations. Because PA was more common than BA, it may be a more sensitive indicator of allodynia in migraine. PA can be tested clinically in a practical and systematic manner.

Preventive Treatment of Migraine: Effect on Weight

Weight gain is a side-effect commonly associated with drugs used for headache prophylaxis. Weight gain can adversely affect patient health, exacerbate comorbid metabolic disorders and encourage noncompliance. Few studies have been conducted specifically on the effect of headache medications on weight, and it is important for physicians to have accurate information about weight-gain side-effects when identifying appropriate pharmacological regimens. This review discusses the potential effects on weight of the more common headache medications.

Referred Cutaneous Allodynia in a Migraine Patient without Simultaneous Headache

Cutaneous allodynia has been described in migraine. We report on a 39-year-old woman with migraine with aura who had cutaneous allodynia to both dynamic (brush) and static (pressure) mechanical stimulation between attacks. For both sensory modalities, the evoked pain on allodynia testing was located to the right frontal area (the location of her usual migraine headache), contralaterally to the stimulated skin area. There was no allodynia when the right frontal area was stimulated directly. We suggest the term ‘referred allodynia’ for this phenomenon and discuss possible mechanisms for its occurrence.

Efficacy and Tolerability of STOPAIN for a Migraine Attack

Objective: To determine whether topical menthol 6% gel will relieve a migraine attack.

Materials and Methods: A single-center, open-label pilot trial of 25 patients with at least 1 year of diagnosed episodic migraine and <15 headache days per month. Patients treated one migraine attack with STOPAIN topical menthol 6% gel to skull base within 2 h of headache onset. Headache pain severity was assessed prior to and after gel application.

Results: Thirty-two patients enrolled and 25 completed the study. Prior to treatment, 7 patients had mild pain, 13 moderate pain, and 5 severe pain. Two hours following gel application, 7 (28%) patients had no pain, 7 (28%) mild pain, 6 (25%) moderate pain, and 5 (20%) severe pain. The majority of patients had similar pain intensity (8; 32%) or improvement (13; 52%). At 24-h, only two non-rescued patients still had mild headache. Of the 25 completers, 2 patients took rescue medication prior to the 2-h period, and an additional 10 patients rescued between 2 and 24 h.

Conclusion: Study results showed a significant improvement in headache intensity by 2 h after gel application. This pilot study shows STOPAIN gel may be effective in treating an acute migraine attack.

Occipital nerve stimulation for chronic migraine

Occipital nerve stimulation may be effective in treating chronic migraine. Six studies, including three double-blind studies, were performed, with five showing evidence of benefit. However, of the three randomized, controlled trials, none has met a primary endpoint successfully. A separate study suggested a benefit for combined supraorbital and greater occipital nerve stimulation.

Duloxetine prophylaxis for episodic migraine in persons without depression: a prospective study

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this pilot study is to evaluate the effects of daily duloxetine, 60-120 mg, on the frequency, duration, and severity of migraine attacks and the level of disability in episodic migraineurs.

BACKGROUND

There is a need for more proven effective migraine preventive medications. Two antidepressants, both of which block serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake, have been shown to be effective in the preventive treatment of migraine. Neither has earned a level A recommendation in the 2012 guidelines of the American Academy of Neurology. Duloxetine also blocks serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake.

METHODS

This was a prospective, 5-visit study on duloxetine treatment of episodic migraine headache with 4-10 migraine days, and less than 15 headache days per month. Patients were titrated to a goal dose of 120 mg. They were excluded if they had depression.

RESULTS

There were 22 completers plus 5 subjects who took at least 1 dose of drug. The mean duloxetine dose was 110 mg. In a modified intent-to-treat analysis, subjects went from 9.2 ± 2.7 headache days per month at baseline to 4.5 ± 3.4 headache days per month (P < .001). There were no significant differences in the average headache duration, average headache severity, maximum headache attack severity, and level of functioning. Fifty-two percent of subjects had a 50% or greater improvement in headache days.

CONCLUSIONS

Migraine prophylactic treatment with high-dose duloxetine may be effective in a nondepressed individual. The reported treatment response is in line with other commonly used migraine preventives.

Expert consensus recommendations for the performance of peripheral nerve blocks for headaches--a narrative review

OBJECTIVE

To describe a standardized methodology for the performance of peripheral nerve blocks (PNBs) in the treatment of headache disorders.

BACKGROUND

PNBs have long been employed in the management of headache disorders, but a wide variety of techniques are utilized in literature reports and clinical practice.

METHODS

The American Headache Society Special Interest Section for PNBs and other Interventional Procedures convened meetings during 2010-2011 featuring formal discussions and agreements about the procedural details for occipital and trigeminal PNBs. A subcommittee then generated a narrative review detailing the methodology.

RESULTS

PNB indications may include select primary headache disorders, secondary headache disorders, and cranial neuralgias. Special procedural considerations may be necessary in certain patient populations, including pregnancy, the elderly, anesthetic allergy, prior vasovagal attacks, an open skull defect, antiplatelet/anticoagulant use, and cosmetic concerns. PNBs described include greater occipital, lesser occipital, supratrochlear, supraorbital, and auriculotemporal injections. Technical success of the PNB should result in cutaneous anesthesia. Targeted clinical outcomes depend on the indication, and include relief of an acute headache attack, terminating a headache cycle, and transitioning out of a medication-overuse pattern. Reinjection frequency is variable, depending on the indications and agents used, and the addition of corticosteroids may be most appropriate when treating cluster headache.

CONCLUSIONS

These recommendations from the American Headache Society Special Interest Section for PNBs and other Interventional Procedures members for PNB methodology in headache disorder treatment are derived from the available literature and expert consensus. With the exception of cluster headache, there is a paucity of evidence, and further research may result in the revision of these recommendations to improve the outcome and safety of these interventions.

The stigma of migraine

BACKGROUND

People who have a disease often experience stigma, a socially and culturally embedded process through which individuals experience stereotyping, devaluation, and discrimination. Stigma has great impact on quality of life, behavior, and life chances. We do not know whether or not migraine is stigmatizing.

METHODS

We studied 123 episodic migraine patients, 123 chronic migraine patients, and 62 epilepsy patients in a clinical setting to investigate the extent to which stigma attaches to migraine, using epilepsy as a comparison. We used the stigma scale for chronic illness, a 24-item questionnaire suitable for studying chronic neurologic diseases, and various disease impact measures.

RESULTS

Patients with chronic migraine had higher scores (54.0±20.2) on the stigma scale for chronic illness than either episodic migraine (41.7±14.8) or epilepsy patients (44.6±16.3) (p<0.001). Subjects with migraine reported greater inability to work than epilepsy subjects. Stigma correlated most strongly with the mental component score of the short form of the medical outcomes health survey (SF-12), then with ability to work and migraine disability score for chronic and episodic migraine and the Liverpool impact on epilepsy scale for epilepsy. Analysis of covariance showed adjusted scores for the stigma scale for chronic illness were similar for chronic migraine (49.3; 95% confidence interval, 46.2 to 52.4) and epilepsy (46.5; 95% confidence interval, 41.6 to 51.6), and lower for episodic migraine (43.7; 95% confidence interval, 40.9 to 46.6). Ability to work was the strongest predictor of stigma as measured by the stigma scale for chronic illness.

CONCLUSION

In our model, adjusted stigma was similar for chronic migraine and epilepsy, which were greater than for episodic migraine. Stigma correlated most strongly with inability to work, and was greater for chronic migraine than epilepsy or episodic migraine because chronic migraine patients had less ability to work.

Occipital nerve stimulation for primary headaches

Occipital nerve stimulation may be effective for primary headache disorders. Four studies, including two double-blind show, stimulation-controlled studies that were performed for chronic migraine showed evidence of benefit. A separate study suggested a benefit for combined supraorbital and greater occipital nerve stimulation. Anecdotal evidence suggests benefit in hemicrania continua. In chronic cluster headache, several case series have shown improvement, which, combined with the safety of occipital nerve stimulation relative to deep brain stimulation, have led to published reports supporting this as the preferred surgical technique for chronic cluster headache. A few case reports suggest a possible benefit in short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks with conjunctival injection tearing and short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache.

Naming migraine and those who have it

Medical language has implications for both public perception of and institutional responses to illness. A consensus panel of physicians, academics, advocates, and patients with diverse experiences and knowledge about migraine considered 3 questions: (1) What is migraine: an illness, disease, syndrome, condition, disorder, or susceptibility? (2) What ought we call someone with migraine? (3) What should we not call someone with migraine? Although consensus was not reached, the responses were summarized and analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively. Panelists participated in writing and editing the paper. The panelists agreed that "migraine," not "migraine headache," was generally preferable, that migraine met the dictionary definition for each candidate moniker, terms with psychiatric valence should be avoided, and "sufferer" should be avoided except in very limited circumstances. Overall, while there was no consensus, "disease" was the preferred term in the most situations, and illness the least preferred. Panelists disagreed strongly whether one ought to use the term "migraineur" at all or if "person with migraine" was preferable. Panelists drew upon a variety of principles when considering language choices, including the extent to which candidate monikers could be defended using biomedical evidence, the cultural meaning of the proposed term, and the context within which the term would be used. Panelists strove to balance the need for terms to describe the best science on migraine, with the desire to choose language that would emphasize the credibility of migraine. The wide range of symptoms of migraine and its diverse effects may require considerable elasticity of language.