Difficulties in work activities and the pervasive effect over disability in patients with episodic and chronic migraine

Unravelling Migraine Stigma: A Comprehensive Review of Its Impact and Strategies for Change

Migraine-related stigma is a pervasive issue impacting nearly half of chronic migraine patients, with significant consequences for their quality of life, disability and mental health. Despite its profound effects, migraine stigma remains under-recognised in both clinical practice and research. This narrative review explores the three primary types of stigmas affecting migraine patients: public, structural and internalised. Public stigma involves negative societal attitudes and stereotypes that trivialise the condition. Structural stigma is reflected in policies that restrict access to necessary care and resources. Internalised stigma occurs when patients absorb these negative views, leading to self-blame and diminished self-worth. Addressing these different types of stigmas is crucial for improving the understanding, diagnosis and treatment of migraine. Educational efforts, advocacy and policy reform are essential strategies in this context. A deep understanding of stigma is vital for developing effective interventions that enhance clinical management and patient quality of life. Ultimately, reducing stigma can lead to better health outcomes and a more comprehensive approach to migraine care.

Exploring the link between self-management of migraine and emotional wellbeing: a cross-sectional study of community-dwelling migraine sufferers

BACKGROUND

Globally, an estimated 14% of adults live with migraine disease which impacts their physical, emotional and social wellbeing. To target the disease comprehensively, research recommends a multidisciplinary approach to migraine management. Yet, at present, migraine management primarily centers around pharmaceutical treatments. The aim of this study was to investigate the extent to which emotional awareness could influence the uptake of self-care behaviours of community-dwelling adults with migraine.

METHODS

A cross-sectional online survey explored personal experiences with migraine disease and strategies or behaviours to manage migraine attacks. Chi-squared tests were used to investigate differences in ratings of migraine prevention and management strategies between users and non-users of the strategies. Univariable logistic regressions were used to assess the effectiveness of self-care behaviours to manage or prevent migraine attacks.

RESULTS

We surveyed 170 community-dwelling adults with migraine in the United Kingdom, Austria, Germany and the United States. Most (85%) respondents had experienced migraine for over five years, where 42% of attacks usually lasted several days. Whereas we did not differentiate between diagnosis by a neurologist or self-diagnosis, the most common diagnoses in the cohort were migraine without aura (38.9%) and migraine with aura (29%). Staying hydrated was the most popular preventative strategy (87%), 70.2% used prescription medication and 64.9% changed their diet and/or supplements. Almost all ( 92.4%) respondents stated that their mood or emotions could trigger their migraine attacks. Keeping a headache or mood diary was the lowest-rated prevention strategy and was rated as "probably ineffective" or causing "no change" in preventing migraine attacks. Over a third (39.7%) kept track of their physical wellbeing and symptoms. Reasons stated for tracking symptoms included to identify triggers (65.8%), show reports to a healthcare professional (59.6%), understand when they must take medication (48.1%), track improvements (67.3%) or deteriorations (67.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

Migraine management is dominated by pharmaceutical management for acute pain attacks and lifestyle changes for managing migraine long-term. Perception of the effectiveness of those techniques is high, whereas perception of interventions that target the emotional or psychological components of chronic pain management (keeping a mood diary, and mental health support) is mixed. There exists a gap between the recommended biopsychosocial approach and the current state of migraine management.

Real-World Analysis of Clinical Characteristics, Treatment Patterns, and Patient-Reported Outcomes of Insufficient Responders and Responders to Prescribed Acute Migraine Treatment in China

INTRODUCTION

Migraine is a common disabling primary headache disorder characterized by attacks of severe pain, sometimes accompanied by symptoms including nausea and photo-/phono-phobia. Real-world data of patients with migraine who sufficiently (responders) and insufficiently (insufficient responders) respond to acute treatment (AT) are limited in China. This analysis explored whether responders to AT differ from insufficient responders in terms of clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, and patient-reported outcomes in China.

METHODS

Data were drawn from the Adelphi Migraine Disease Specific Programme™, a point-in-time survey of internists/neurologists and their consulting patients with migraine, conducted in a real-world setting in China, January-June 2014. Responders and insufficient responders to prescribed AT were patients who typically achieved headache pain freedom within 2 h of AT in ≥ 4 and ≤ 3 of five migraine attacks, respectively. Responders were compared with insufficient responders; logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with insufficient response.

RESULTS

Of 777 patients currently receiving AT, 44.0% were insufficient responders. Significantly fewer responders than insufficient responders had migraine with aura (13.1 vs. 23.8%; p = 0.0001). Responders reported a significantly lower mean Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) total score (5.5 vs. 6.6; p = 0.0325). Responders reported a lower mean impairment while working (50.0 vs. 63.9%; p < 0.0001), overall work impairment (52.6 vs. 66.0%; p < 0.0001), and activity impairment (48.9 vs. 59.0%; p < 0.0001). Statistically significant factors associated with insufficient response to AT included diabetes, unilateral pain, vomiting, sensitivity to smell, visual aura/sight disturbance, and an increase in MIDAS total score. However, there were no statistically significant differences in ATs received by responders and insufficient responders at any regimen of therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Many patients with migraine in China are insufficient responders to AT, experiencing worse symptoms that lead to overall poorer quality of life than responders. This unmet need suggests that new effective treatment options are required for migraine.

Migraine in the workplace

Migraine is prevalent, disabling, and peaks during people's peak productive years. The impact of migraine on people's professional lives, work productivity, and interpersonal relationships at work eventually affects everyone, has a significant detrimental effect on people with migraine, and a huge cost in terms of lost productivity. People with migraine want to work, so they do their best to work despite the varied migraine related and associated symptoms. Most of migraine-related productivity loss (89%) is due to presenteeism. People are less than half effective during a migraine attack due to the pain, migraine symptoms, attack unpredictability, migraine comorbidities, emotional impact, under-diagnosis and under-management, and the stigma. Migraine-related productivity loss may negatively affect people's career choice, job status and/or security, financial status, work relationships, mood, and confidence. Migraine is estimated to represent 16% of total US workforce presenteeism. Thankfully, there are ways to help support people with migraine in the workplace and increase their productivity such as: workplace migraine education programs, workplace migraine education and management programs, migraine-friendly work environment, migraine treatment optimization and advocacy. The example of the successful workplace migraine education and management program developed and run in collaboration between Fujitsu, the Japanase Headache Society, and the International Headache Society Global Patient Advocacy Coalition is discussed.

•

Migraine-related productivity loss is costly to people with migraine, to employers, and to everyone in one way or another.

•

Workplace migraine education and/or management programs and migraine-friendly environment help people with migraine at work.

•

Neurologists can help support their patients in the workplace and get involved in advocacy in many ways.

Managing of Migraine in the Workplaces: Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices of Italian Occupational Physicians

Background and Objectives: Migraine is a debilitating disorder, whose incidence peak in the age group of 30-39 years overlaps with the peak of employment years, potentially representing a significant issue for occupational physicians (OP). The present study was performed in order to characterize their knowledge, attitudes and practices on migraine in the workplaces. Materials and Methods: A convenience sample of 242 Italian OP (mean age 47.8 ± 8.8 years, males 67.4%) participated in an internet-based survey by completing a structured questionnaire. Results: Adequate general knowledge of migraine was found in the majority of participants. Migraine was identified as a common and severe disorder by the majority of respondents (54.0% and 60.0%). Overall, 61.2% of participants acknowledged migraine as difficult to manage in the workplace, a status that made it more likely for OP understanding its potential frequency (Odds Ratio [OR] 3.672, 95% confidence interval [95%CI] 1.526-8.831), or reported previous managing of complicated cases requiring conditional fitness to work judgement (OR 4.761, 95%CI 1.781-2.726). Moreover, professionals with a qualification in occupational medicine (OR 20.326, 95%CI 2.642-156.358), acknowledging the difficult managing of migraine in the workplaces (OR 2.715, 95%CI 1.034-7.128) and having received any request of medical surveillance for migraine (OR 22.878, 95%CI 4.816-108.683), were more likely to recommend specific requirements for migraineur workers. Conclusions: Migraine was recognized as a common disorder, but also as a challenging clinical problem for OP. Participating OP exhibited a substantial understanding of migraine and its triggers, but residual false beliefs and common misunderstanding may impair the proper management of this disorder, requiring improved and specifically targeted interventions.

Migraine Outcome Should Not Be Used to Determine Diagnosis, Severity, and Therapy: Moving Towards a Multiparametric Definition of Chronicity

Chronic migraine (CM) diagnosis is nowadays based on the threshold of 15 headache days/month for three consecutive months, of which at least eight have migraine headache features. In recent years, proposals for reducing the threshold to 8 days/month have been proposed. The sole frequency parameter, however, is partial considering the variability in frequency, pain severity, associated symptoms, such as nausea, osmophobia, and photophobia, and presence of aura, but also the variable response to treatment and the association with several comorbidities. Therefore, in our opinion, a multiparameter perspective has to be taken into account that considers the underlying pathophysiology, in particular the presence of tension-type-like pain, cutaneous allodynia, and reduced pain threshold. A paradigm change in the definition of chronic migraine moves far beyond the mere 8 vs. 15 days/month, but has ethical and practical implications for treatment: should patients be treated with the most effective prophylactic drugs, i.e., monoclonal antibodies (MABs), if they enter into a new definition of CM? How should clinicians deal with treatment escalation towards MABs? What is the role of associated conditions, response to treatments, lifestyle issues, and psychological factors? And, finally, which endpoint should we use to define effectiveness? Is improvement in headache frequency enough, or should we move towards disability, quality of life, or workplace productivity?

Using the Delphi method to identify meaningful and feasible outcomes for pharmaceutical value-based contracting

In an effort to demonstrate measurable value of pharmaceuticals in the United States, many payers and drug manufacturers have entered into value-based purchasing contracts that link payment for prescription medications to patient outcomes, creating shared risk between the 2 entities. These agreements have emerged as part of a larger movement within the health care landscape to transition away from volume-based payment models and towards value-based designs that promote high-quality and affordable care. Key to the success of pharmaceutical value-based contracting is agreement on meaningful and measurable outcomes that reflect drug performance. Traditional value-based contracts are developed by pharmaceutical companies and payers and may not reflect values of other important stakeholders, such as patients, providers, and employers (when applicable). One approach to more effectively align the interests of all key stakeholders and to maximize the effect and transparency of value-based pharmaceutical contracts is to use the validated Delphi surveying technique, which can gather information and build stakeholder consensus on key elements before contract development. In this Viewpoints article, we describe our experience conducting Delphi studies in 5 disease contexts to inform pharmaceutical value-based contract development, including insights learned and practical considerations for real-world application. In addition, we outline advantages to using this validated consensus-building tool to solicit vital and underrepresented stakeholder input, foster transparency in the contract development process, and promote shared learning for future value-based initiatives. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this project. All authors are or were employed by UPMC Health Plan at the time of this study and have no other disclosures to declare.

The impact of COVID-19 pandemic on headache symptoms and drug withdrawal among patients with medication overuse headache: a cross-sectional study

Background

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) bring about a range of psychological distress and symptom deterioration to headache patients especially to some migraineurs. Compared to migraineurs or normal control, medication overuse headache (MOH) patients are more likely to experience a worse psychological distress and poorer outcome in non-COVID-19 time. However, in COVID-19 pandemic, whether MOH patients would have greater physical and mental symptom deterioration or worse relief of headache symptoms and medications overuse remained unclear. We aim to investigate the impact of COVID-19 on MOH patients to guide for a better management in this study.

Methods

We enrolled MOH patients who were diagnosed and treated at headache clinic of West China Hospital. Information of the pre-pandemic 3 months period and COVID-19 pandemic period was collected. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression were performed to identify independent factors associated with changes in headache symptoms and drug withdrawal.

Results

Seventy-eight MOH patients were enrolled into the study ultimately. In comparison to pre-pandemic period, fewer MOH patients reported decreased headache days, intensity and days with acute medications per month during the pandemic. Available access to regular prophylactic medications was significantly associated with a reduction of at least 50% in headache days and decrease in headache intensity per month with respective odds ratios of 39.19 (95% CI 3.75–409.15, P = 0.002) and 10.13 (95% CI 2.33–44.12, P = 0.002). Following abrupt withdrawal and high educational level were both significant factors in decreasing headache intensity. Male sex was significantly associated with decrease in days with acute medication per month during the pandemic (odds ratios 4.78, 95%CI 1.44–15.87, P = 0.011).

Conclusions

Our findings reflect that MOH patients experienced a worse relief of headache symptoms and drug withdrawal during the pandemic. Available access to regular prophylactic medications was the significant independent factor for improvement of headache symptoms. Male sex was significantly associated with decreased days with acute medications per month.

The Evolution of Medication Overuse Headache: History, Pathophysiology and Clinical Update

Medication overuse headache (MOH), the development or worsening of chronic headache resulting from frequent and excessive intake of medications used for acute treatment of headache, is a common secondary headache disorder and is associated with significant personal and societal burdens. The plausible physiologic mechanism is that chronic exposure to acute care migraine treatment leads to suppression of endogenous antinociceptive systems, consequently facilitating the trigeminal nociceptive process via up-regulation of the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) system. Recognizing and preventing its development is an integral aspect of migraine management, as medication overuse is a modifiable risk factor in the progression from episodic to chronic migraine. Over the years, MOH has been difficult to treat and has generated much controversy. Ongoing debates exist over the diagnostic criteria and treatment strategies, particularly regarding the roles of formal detoxification and preventive treatment. The arrival of the anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies has also challenged our views of MOH and its treatment. This review outlines the evolution of MOH diagnostic criteria, presents the current understanding of MOH pathogenesis and discusses the debates over its development and treatment. Data on the efficacy of anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies in the setting of medication overuse is also presented. These results indicate that patients with medication overuse, who are treated with these new medications, may not need to be detoxified in order to treat MOH. In light of these developments, it is likely that in the future MOH will be more readily diagnosed and treatment will result in better outcomes.

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.

Mapping Assessments Instruments for Headache Disorders against the ICF Biopsychosocial Model of Health and Disability

Headache disorders have a strong impact on sufferers’ lives. However, the “content” of assessment instruments addressing concepts, such as disability and quality of life (QoL), has not comprehensively been addressed. We searched SCOPUS for research papers in which outcome measures were used in adult populations of patients with migraine, tension-type headache (TTH), and cluster headache (CH). The content of single instruments was then mapped against the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health. A total of 150 papers and 26 instruments were included: 15 addressed disability or impact, two addressed work-related difficulties, and nine addressed QoL. Few instruments were commonly used across the conditions and covered domains of functioning were impact on daily life activities, homework, school, and work-related tasks, leisure time, informal and family relations, pain, emotional difficulties, energy level, and impulse control. Most of the research is based on instruments that were developed for migraine, which is critical for CH, and the impact of headache disorders on work-related activities is poorly acknowledged. Further research is needed to expand the scope of headaches impact on daily life activities, and on environmental factors relevant to headache disorders to raise knowledge on the less represented areas, e.g., TTH impact.

A Real-World Analysis of Patient Characteristics, Treatment Patterns, and Level of Impairment in Patients With Migraine Who are Insufficient Responders vs Responders to Acute Treatment

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to examine if patients with migraine who responded sufficiently to acute treatment were significantly different from those who did not in terms of patient characteristics, treatment patterns, and patient level of impairment, and to identify characteristics associated with insufficient response.

BACKGROUND

Migraine is highly prevalent and impacts functional ability substantially. Current treatment approaches are not sufficiently meeting the needs of patients, and inadequate response to acute treatment is reported by at least 56% of patients with migraine in the United States.

METHODS

Data were obtained from the 2014 Adelphi Migraine Disease-Specific Program, a cross-sectional survey. Using logistic regression, we assessed the association between patient factors and insufficient response. Responders were defined as patients with migraine who achieved pain freedom within 2 hours of acute treatment in ≥4 of 5 attacks, while insufficient responders achieved it in ≤3 of 5 attacks.

RESULTS

Of 583 patients included, insufficient responders to acute treatment constituted 34.3% (200/583) of the study population. A statistically significantly larger proportion of insufficient responders vs responders had ≥4 migraine headache days/month (46.3% [88/190] vs 31% [114/368]), had ever been prescribed ≥3 unique preventive treatment regimens (11.7% [21/179] vs 6.3% [22/347]), and had chronic migraine, medication-overuse headaches, and comorbid depression (all P values ≤.05). Patient level of impairment was statistically significantly greater among insufficient responders vs responders. Factors associated with insufficient response after adjusting for covariates included Migraine Disability Assessment total score (odds ratio [OR] = 1.04, 95% CI [1.02, 1.05]), time of administration of acute treatment (OR = 1.83, 95% CI [1.15, 2.92]), depression (OR = 1.98, 95% CI [1.21, 3.23]), sensitivity to light not listed as current most troublesome symptom (OR = 2.30, 95% CI [1.21, 4.37]), and change in the average headache days per month before being prescribed an acute treatment vs now (OR = 1.75, 95% CI [1.05, 2.90]).

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, and health-related quality of life measures are statistically significantly different between insufficient responders and responders to acute treatment in patients with migraine.

Ubrogepant, an Acute Treatment for Migraine, Improved Patient-Reported Functional Disability and Satisfaction in 2 Single-Attack Phase 3 Randomized Trials, ACHIEVE I and II

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of ubrogepant on patient-reported functional disability, satisfaction with study medication, and global impression of change.

BACKGROUND

Ubrogepant is a small-molecule, oral calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist indicated for the acute treatment of migraine. In 2 phase 3 trials (ACHIEVE I and II), ubrogepant demonstrated efficacy vs placebo on the 2 co-primary endpoints of headache pain freedom and absence of the most bothersome migraine-associated symptom at 2 hours post dose for the 50 and 100 mg doses. Patient-reported outcomes, such as functional disability, satisfaction, and patient global impression of change, can provide additional evidence of the efficacy of an acute treatment for migraine on clinically meaningful and patient-relevant outcomes.

METHODS

ACHIEVE I and ACHIEVE II were multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, single-attack trials in adults (18-75 years) with migraine. In ACHIEVE I, participants were randomized 1:1:1 to placebo or ubrogepant 50 or 100 mg; in ACHIEVE II, participants were randomized 1:1:1 to placebo or ubrogepant 25 or 50 mg to treat a migraine attack with moderate or severe headache pain. Participants rated ability to perform daily activities on the Functional Disability Scale, before dosing and at 1, 2, 4, and 8 hours after the initial dose; satisfaction with study medication at 2 and 24 hours; and impression of overall change in migraine on the Patient Global Impression of Change scale at 2 hours. In prespecified analyses for each trial, each outcome was compared between each ubrogepant dose group and the relevant placebo group. Data were pooled from the ubrogepant 50 mg and placebo groups of the 2 trials in a post hoc analysis.

RESULTS

In ACHIEVE I, 559 participants were randomized to placebo, 556 to ubrogepant 50 mg, and 557 to ubrogepant 100 mg; in ACHIEVE II, 563 were randomized to placebo, 561 to ubrogepant 25 mg, and 562 to ubrogepant 50 mg. At 2 hours post dose, significantly higher proportions of ubrogepant-treated participants vs placebo-treated participants reported being able to function normally (ACHIEVE I: ubrogepant 50 mg, 40.6% [171/421], P = .0012 vs placebo; ubrogepant 100 mg, 42.9% [192/448], P < .0001 vs placebo; placebo, 29.8% [136/456]; ACHIEVE II: ubrogepant 25 mg, 42.6% [185/434], P = .0015 vs placebo; ubrogepant 50 mg, 40.5% [188/464], P = .0118 vs placebo; placebo, 34.2% [156/456]; pooled 50 mg, 40.6% [359/885], vs pooled placebo, 32.0% [292/912]; P < .0001), were satisfied/extremely satisfied with study medication (ACHIEVE I: 50 mg, 36.3% [147/405], P < .0001 vs placebo; 100 mg, 35.8% [149/416], P = .0002 vs placebo; placebo, 24.1% [104/432]; ACHIEVE II: 25 mg, 35.1% [141/402], P = .0018 vs placebo; 50 mg, 37.8% [163/431], P < .0001 vs placebo; placebo, 24.8% [106/427]; pooled ubrogepant 50 mg, 37.1% [310/836], vs pooled placebo, 24.5% [210/859]; P < .0001), and indicated that their migraine was much/very much better on the Patient Global Impression of Change scale (ACHIEVE I: 50 mg, 34.4% [103/299], P = .0006 vs placebo; 100 mg, 34.3% [102/297], P = .0009 vs placebo; placebo, 22.0% [69/313]; ACHIEVE II: 25 mg, 34.1% [124/364], P < .0001 vs placebo; 50 mg, 33.4% [131/392], P = .0002 vs placebo; placebo, 20.7% [78/376]; pooled 50 mg, 33.9% [234/691], vs pooled placebo, 21.3% [147/689]; P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

A significantly higher proportion of participants treated with ubrogepant were able to function normally, were satisfied with the study medication, and reported clinically meaningful improvement compared with those receiving placebo. The results reinforce the potential benefits of ubrogepant on patient-centered outcomes in the acute treatment of migraine.

Evaluating the Psychometric Properties of the Migraine Functional Impact Questionnaire (MFIQ)

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a chronic neurologic disease that can be associated with significant migraine-related impact, disability, and burden. Patient-reported outcome measures (PRO) are included in clinical trials of migraine interventions to capture treatment effects from a patient perspective. Clinical and regulatory guidelines also encourage use of PROs in trials. The Migraine Functional Impact Questionnaire (MFIQ) is a novel PRO measure, assessing the impact of migraine on Physical Function (PF), Usual Activities (UA), Social Function (SF), and Emotional Function (EF), in the past 7 days. Scientific methods recommended to meet the requirements of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration were followed, to ensure that the MFIQ content included outcomes that were relevant to adults with migraine and were clinically relevant, specifically to evaluate preventive treatments for migraine.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to conduct item analyses informing item reduction and scoring, and to evaluate the psychometric properties of the MFIQ.

METHODS

In a prospective, observational study, adults with migraine completed the MFIQ as well as additional clinical and PRO instruments, including the Headache Impact Test (HIT-6TM ), Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function Short Form 10a (PROMIS-PF), Migraine-Specific Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (MSQ), and Patient Global Rating of Change (PGIC). Item-level evaluation, item response theory (IRT), and factor analysis were used to select final MFIQ items, identify domains, and inform scoring. Psychometric properties of the MFIQ were evaluated to assess reliability (internal consistency and test-retest), validity (construct and known-groups), and responsiveness.

RESULTS

The study enrolled 569 adults with migraine. Subjects had an average age of 39.9 years (SD 12.0), 87.2% were female, and 80.8% were white. Five items were dropped from the draft version based on results of item-level analyses reviewed in the context of previous qualitative research to produce the final 26-item MFIQ (v.2). Four domain scores (PF, UA, SF, and EF) and a global item score for impact on UA were identified. Higher scores on a 0-100 scale represent greater impact. All scores exhibited high internal consistency (α ≥ 0.89) and moderate test-retest reliability among stable subjects (ICCs ≥ 0.47). Construct validity was demonstrated by significant correlations (all P < .0001) between MFIQ domain scores, related PRO scores, and the frequency of migraine days and headache days. All domain scores differentiated between subgroups ("known groups") defined based on established levels of clinical severity: number of monthly migraine and headache days, migraine interference levels and scores on other PRO instruments (P < .05). Improvements in MFIQ scores corresponded with clinical improvement (percent reduction in monthly migraine days), improvement in migraine interference with daily activities, and related improvements in PRO scores (P < .05), demonstrating that the MFIQ was responsive to changes in migraine impact.

CONCLUSIONS

The MFIQ is a reliable and valid measure that can be used to collect data about migraine impact. The MFIQ is being used to evaluate outcomes of migraine interventions in clinical trials and observational studies. It could potentially also be used in clinical practice both for initial and ongoing assessments for monitoring outcomes and to enhance communication between patients and healthcare professionals for the management of migraine.

Effect of Migraine Headache on Productivity of Patients According to Migraine Disability Assessment Score: A Cross-Sectional Study

Introduction

Migraine, a primary headache disorder, is usually recurrent with moderate to severe intensity. Migraine is the third most common cause of disability under the age of 50. There are various scoring systems for assessing this disability, one of which is MIDAS; the Migraine Disability Assessment Score. The objective of our study was to determine the extent of disability among migraine patients, patterns of prophylaxis, and their healthcare-seeking behaviors.

Methods

This survey was done in 50 migraine patients at Jinnah postgraduate medical Centre from April to May 2018. The questionnaire inquired about the demographic information, management of migraine, and effect of this condition on their sleep, and the last part had assessment to know about their functional disability.

Results

The majority of the patients were females with a mean age of 31 ± 10 years. Acetaminophen was the most common medication used during a migraine attack, followed by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Only 54% of subjects admitted using prophylaxis, out of which 94% had stopped taking it after some time, with the most common reason being their side effects. β-blockers were the most common prophylaxis used. Only 32% had a regular follow-up visit with their doctors. Patients were graded according to the MIDAS score as: little or no disability, 22%; mild disability, 14%; moderate disability, 24%; and severe disability, 40%.

Conclusions

The majority of migraine patients were found to have severe disability, which affected their daily work and social activities. Despite an increase in disability rate due to migraine, people do not seek regular medical care for this type of headache in Pakistan.

Pathophysiology, prevention, and treatment of medication overuse headache

Regular or frequent use of analgesics and acute antimigraine drugs can increase the frequency of headache, and induce the transition from episodic to chronic headache or medication overuse headache. The 1-year prevalence of this condition in the general population is between 1% and 2%. Medication overuse headache is more common in women and in people with comorbid depression, anxiety, and other chronic pain conditions. Treatment of medication overuse headache has three components. First, patients need education and counselling to reduce the intake of medication for acute headache attacks. Second, some patients benefit from drug withdrawal (discontinuation of the overused medication). Finally, preventive drug therapy and non-medical prevention might be necessary in patients at onset of treatment or in patients who do not respond to the first two steps. The optimal therapeutic approach requires validation in controlled trials.

A narrative review on the burden of migraine: when the burden is the impact on people's life

Background

The burden of headache disorders, and of migraine in particular, is multifaceted and fragmented. The aim of this narrative review is to provide a description the main topics underlying the concepts of burden and impact of migraine disorders.

Main results

MedLine has been searched for publications covering the period 1990–2018 dealing with the terms burden or impact of migraine, including both episodic and chronic migraine. The main results and themes are reported in a descriptive way, and were grouped by similarity of content into overarching categories. A total of 49 papers, published over 25 years (1994–2018), were retained for the qualitative analysis. Six main themes were identified: prevalence of migraine disorders, overall impact of migraine disorders, impact on work or school activities, family impact, interictal burden, and disease costs. Majority of included studies concluded that patients with migraine reported an higher burden or impact in one or more of the six main themes herein identified, compared to non-headache patients or to patients with tension-type headache, with a tendency towards worse outcomes consistently with higher headache frequency.

Conclusions

The results of this narrative review show that the meaning of a sentence like “migraine is a burdensome condition” is not univocal: rather, it may refer to different concepts and meanings. In our opinion, future research should focus on understanding and facing the impact of migraine on work-related activities and on everyday life activities, as these aspects are highly connected to some tangible (i.e. cost) and less tangible (i.e. interictal burden and reduced quality of life) facets of migraine burden. Disease-specific measures have been implemented and should be exploited to enhance our understanding of migraine burden. This approach would allow to better understand the real impact on people’s life of such a burdensome disease.

Validation of a self-reported instrument to assess work-related difficulties in patients with migraine: the HEADWORK questionnaire

Background

The degree to which work-related difficulties are recognized in headache research is poor and often carried out with inadequate information such as “reduced ability to work as usual”, which do not capture at all the variety of difficulties and the factors that impact over them. The aim of this paper is to present the validation of the HEADWORK questionnaire, which addresses the amount and severity of difficulties in work-related tasks and the factors that impact over them.

Methods

We developed a set of items based on a previous literature review and patients’ focus groups and tested it on a wide set of patients with episodic and chronic migraine attending eight different Italian headache centers. HEADWORK factor structure was assessed with exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis; internal consistency and construct validity were addressed as well.

Results

The validation sample (N = 373) was mostly composed of patients with episodic migraine without aura (64.3%) and of females (81%). Factor analysis retrieved two different scales: “Work-related difficulties”, composed of eleven items which explain 67.1% of the total variance, and “Factors contributing to work difficulties”, composed of six items which explain 52.1% of the total variance. Both HEADWORK subscales have good measurement properties, with higher scores being associated to higher disability, lower quality of life, lower productivity, higher headache frequency and pain intensity.

Conclusions

HEADWORK is a 17-item, two-scale questionnaire addressing the impact of migraine on work-related difficulties in terms of difficulties in general or specific skills, and the factors contributing to these difficulties, defined as negative impact on work tasks. It can be used to address disability weights for the purpose of calculating the burden of migraine, and to assess the balance between therapeutic and side effects of medication on productivity.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s10194-018-0914-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Migraine-related disability, impact, and health-related quality of life among patients with episodic migraine receiving preventive treatment with erenumab

Background

We evaluated the effect of erenumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody that inhibits the canonical calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor, on migraine-related disability, impact, and health-related quality of life among patients with episodic migraine.

Methods

Patients enrolled in a phase 3, 6-month, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of once-monthly erenumab 70 and 140 mg for migraine prevention (STRIVE) used an eDiary during the baseline and double-blind treatment phases to complete validated, specific questionnaires, including the modified (monthly) Migraine Disability Assessment Questionnaire; Headache Impact Test; and Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire-role function-restrictive (MSQ-RFR), -role function-preventive (MSQ-RFP), and -emotional function (MSQ-EF).

Results

A total of 955 patients were randomized to receive erenumab 70 mg (n = 317), erenumab 140 mg (n = 319), or placebo (n = 319). Erenumab versus placebo resulted in significantly greater improvements in all patient-reported outcomes; changes from baseline were numerically higher with 140 mg erenumab. Improvements occurred rapidly and were maintained over 6 months of treatment. Between-group differences from placebo over months 4–6 for the 70- and 140-mg dose groups were, respectively, −2.1 and −2.8 for modified (monthly) Migraine Disability Assessment Questionnaire, −2.1 and −2.3 for Headache Impact Test, 5.1 and 6.5 for MSQ-RFR, 4.2 and 5.4 for MSQ-RFP, and 5.2 and 6.7 for MSQ-EF ( p < 0.001 for all). Erenumab also significantly reduced the proportion of patients with severe and very severe migraine-related disability and increased the proportion of patients with clinically meaningful improvements in migraine-related impact and health-related quality of life.

Conclusion

Erenumab reduced migraine disability and impact and improved patients’ health-related quality of life, reinforcing its role as a promising new therapy for migraine prevention.

Migraine: incorrect self-management for a disabling disease

Migraine is an economically and socially relevant pathology but patients' consciousness and consequently a proper management is often unsatisfactory. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the disease awareness, the general approach and the impact on working activity in a population of headache-affected hospital workers. During an 18-month period, hospital workers responded to a questionnaire investigating headache presence, characteristics and awareness. Specific attention was paid to define headache impact on working activities. 1774 consecutive subjects were enrolled. Headache was documented in 45.7% of the sample, migraine in 16.6%. 40.6% of the patients with headache and 50.7% of the migraneous subjects had a specialist medical evaluation. Triptans use was significantly lower than non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs use. 39.5% of migraneous complained of attacks during working time, 60.2% acknowledged a negative influence on work quality. 25.5% of migraneous patients reported a loss of working days attributable to the disease. Migraine is disabling for workers with negative consequences on job capacity and quality. Efforts should be made to improve disease awareness to stimulate a better diagnostic and therapeutic approach.

National awareness campaign to prevent medication-overuse headache in Denmark

Background

Medication-overuse headache is prevalent, but in principle preventable.

Objective

To describe the Danish national awareness campaign for medication-overuse headache.

Methods

The Danish Headache Center, the Association of Danish Pharmacies, and headache patient organizations implemented a four-month medication-overuse headache awareness campaign in 2016. Target groups were the general public, general practitioners, and pharmacists. Key messages were: Overuse of pain-medication can worsen headaches; pain-medication should be used rationally; and medication-overuse headache is treatable. A range of communication technologies was used. A survey on the public’s awareness of medication-overuse headache was conducted.

Results

The Danish adult population is 4.2 million. Online videos were viewed 297,000 times in three weeks. All 400 pharmacies received campaign materials. Over 28,000 leaflets were distributed. Two radio interviews were conducted. A television broadcast about headache reached an audience of 520,000. Forty articles were published in print media. Information was accessible at 32 reputable websites and five online news agencies. Three scientific papers were published. Information was available at an annual conference of general practitioners, including a headache lecture. The survey showed an increase in percentage of the public who knew about medication-overuse headache (from 31% to 38%).

Conclusion

A concerted campaign to prevent medication-overuse headache can be implemented through involvement of key stakeholders.

World Health Organization disability assessment schedule 2.0: An international systematic review

PURPOSE

This systematic review examines research and practical applications of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) as a basis for establishing specific criteria for evaluating relevant international scientific literature. The aims were to establish the extent of international dissemination and use of WHODAS 2.0 and analyze psychometric research on its various translations and adaptations. In particular, we wanted to highlight which psychometric features have been investigated, focusing on the factor structure, reliability, and validity of this instrument.

METHOD

Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology, we conducted a search for publications focused on "whodas" using the ProQuest, PubMed, and Google Scholar electronic databases.

RESULTS

We identified 810 studies from 94 countries published between 1999 and 2015. WHODAS 2.0 has been translated into 47 languages and dialects and used in 27 areas of research (40% in psychiatry).

CONCLUSIONS

The growing number of studies indicates increasing interest in the WHODAS 2.0 for assessing individual functioning and disability in different settings and individual health conditions. The WHODAS 2.0 shows strong correlations with several other measures of activity limitations; probably due to the fact that it shares the same disability latent variable with them. Implications for Rehabilitation WHODAS 2.0 seems to be a valid, reliable self-report instrument for the assessment of disability. The increasing interest in use of the WHODAS 2.0 extends to rehabilitation and life sciences rather than being limited to psychiatry. WHODAS 2.0 is suitable for assessing health status and disability in a variety of settings and populations. A critical issue for rehabilitation is that a single "minimal clinically important .difference" score for the WHODAS 2.0 has not yet been established.