Outcome of Chronic Daily Headache or Chronic Migraine

Workplace productivity loss as a result of absenteeism and presenteeism in chronic and episodic migraine: a scoping review

Purpose

Migraine consists of a chronic neurological disorder with episodic attacks. Migraine prevails in people of their most productive working age, followed by difficulties at work and social functions. This scoping review aims to analyze the economic burden on a workplace due to chronic migraine compared to episodic migraine by focusing on the indirect costs of absenteeism and presenteeism and addressing the research gaps in this field.

Design/methodology/approach

According to the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews, a comprehensive electronic literature search was carried out from 2010 to 2020 using the Google Scholar and Medline/PubMed databases.

Findings

The findings confirm that chronic and episodic migraine harm the workplace's productivity, escalating with the frequency of migraine attacks. Differences occur between presenteeism and absenteeism rates among chronic and episodic migraine, and higher presenteeism than absenteeism rates.

Originality/value

This review sheds new light on the indirect burden of migraine. It shows the gaps in the explored research area and the need for more targeted and extended research that could provide a deeper understanding of the workplace's hidden costs of migraine. The issues discussed are important as they can raise awareness of the interested parties, policymakers, employers and vocational rehabilitation specialists on the work disability associated with migraine.

Pharmacotherapy of migraine prevention based on the assessment of headache

Migraine as a recurrent, relapsing, and chronic disease is one of the most disabling disorders globally. Most patients are women in their reproductive age and their migraines are classified as episodic migraine. Although less than half of the episodic and most chronic migraineurs require preventive intervention, early discontinuation rates are high, owing to poor tolerability and insufficient awareness about migraine. This article aims to review the recent update of migraine prevention based on the practice guidelines for the prevention of episodic migraine published by the Korea Headache Society and the position statement of the American Headache Society in 2019. The goal of migraine prevention is to reduce migraine attack frequency by at least 50 %, the number of migraine days, and the attack severity to ultimately improve quality of life. The guidelines recommend considering the initiation of preventive medication when recurring migraines significantly interfere with daily life or when acute treatment is contraindicated or inappropriate. Preventive medications should be determined based on various qualified assessments. Pharmacologic treatments are recommended for migraine prophylaxis include antidepressant (amitriptyline), anti-epileptic drugs (topiramate, divalproex sodium), beta-blockers (propranolol, metoprolol), calcium channel blocker (flunarizine), and intramuscular injection of onabotulinumtoxin A. Furthermore subcutaneous or intravenous injection of calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies was recently approved as a new therapy for migraine prevention. Migraine is a chronic debilitating disorder. The initiation of evidence-based preventive management is necessary and management methods should be individually selected to improve quality of life.

Current perspectives on the development and treatment of chronic daily headache in children and adolescents

Headache disorders subsumed under the term chronic daily headache (CDH), including chronic migraine, chronic tension-type headache and new daily persistent headache, affect up to 4% of the pediatric population and can be highly disabling and challenging to effectively treat. Although historically the knowledge base about this group of headache disorders in children primarily was derived from clinical observation and extrapolation from adult studies, over the past several years there have been important research findings relevant to the development and management of pediatric CDH that can help inform clinical practice. The intent of this paper is to provide a focused review on recent empirical work done on pediatric CDH and suggest avenues for future work.

Prevalence, Severity, Exposures, and Treatment Patterns of Tinnitus in the United States

Importance

Tinnitus is a common problem for millions of individuals and can cause substantial negative effects on their quality of life. A large epidemiologic study of tinnitus and its management patterns in the US adult population is lacking.

Objectives

To quantify the epidemiologic features and effect of tinnitus and to analyze the management of tinnitus in the United States relative to the 2014 American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation (AAO-HNSF) clinical practice guidelines.

Design, Methods, and Participants

This cross-sectional analysis of the representative 2007 National Health Interview Survey (raw data, 75 764 respondents) identified a weighted national sample of adults (age, ≥18 years) who reported tinnitus in the preceding 12 months. Data were collected in November 2014 at the University of California, Irvine, and Harvard Medical School.

Main Outcomes and Measures

In addition to quantifying prevalence, severity, duration, and regularity of tinnitus, specific data regarding noise exposure and tinnitus management patterns during health care visits were analyzed.

Results

Among an estimated (SE) 222.1 (3.4) million US adults, 21.4 (3.4) million (9.6% [0.3%]) experienced tinnitus in the past 12 months. Among those who reported tinnitus, 27% had symptoms for longer than 15 years, and 36% had nearly constant symptoms. Higher rates of tinnitus were reported in those with consistent exposure to loud noises at work (odds ratio, 3.3; 95% CI, 2.9-3.7) and during recreational time (odds ratio, 2.6; 95% CI, 2.3-2.9). Years of work-related noise exposure correlated with increasing prevalence of tinnitus (r = 0.13; 95% CI, 0.10-0.16). In terms of subjective severity, 7.2% reported their tinnitus as a big or a very big problem compared with 41.6% who reported it as a small problem. Only 49.4% had discussed their tinnitus with a physician, and medications were the most frequently discussed recommendation (45.4%). Other interventions, such as hearing aids (9.2%), wearable (2.6%) and nonwearable (2.3%) masking devices, and cognitive behavioral therapy (0.2%), were less frequently discussed.

Conclusions and Relevance

The prevalence of tinnitus in the United States is approximately 1 in 10 adults. Durations of occupational and leisure time noise exposures correlated with rates of tinnitus and are likely targetable risk factors. Management options suggested by the recently published AAO-HNSF guidelines were followed infrequently.

Field testing of the ICHD-3β and expert opinion criteria for chronic migraine

BACKGROUND

Chronic headache (CrH) occurs commonly in the population, and chronic migraine (CM) accounts for much of the CrH. Diagnostic criteria for CM remain controversial, and this could lead to undertreatment of CM. The purpose of this study was to analyze the clinical profiles of CM and to field test the International Classification of Headache Disorders-3β criteria (ICHD-3β) and Expert Opinion criteria (EO) for CM application.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of CrH patients in our headache clinic during the period. Eligible patients were selected from CrH population based on Silberstein and Lipton criteria (S-L) for CM, and meanwhile fulfilled with migraine days at least 8 days/month. Then we evaluated the characteristics of clinic profiles and outcomes between patients diagnosed CM using ICHD-3β and EO criteria. Field tested the CM criteria Of ICHD-3β and EO.

RESULTS

In a total of 710 CrH patients , 261 (36.8 %) were recruited with CM based on both S-L criteria and fulfilled at least 8 migraine days/month. Be understandable, all the 261 patients met the EO criteria, and only 185 (70.9 %) met ICHD-3β for CM. For the 76 patients who met EO but not ICHD-3β, 70 had atypical migraine attacks (probable migraine, PM), and another 6 had typical migraine attacks but less than a total history of 5 attacks. Although 173 (66.3 %) were concurrent with medication overuse, just one patient overused triptans and none used ergot agents. Clinical features were not significantly different between the ICHD-3β and EO criteria groups (P > 0.05), and neither were outcomes of prophylaxis (P = 0.966). Total migraine prophylaxis effectiveness was 73 %.

CONCLUSION

Migraine-specific analgesics are rarely used in China, permitting patients with PM to avail themselves of "migraine days" is a reasonable accommodation for this difficult condition. In our hands, use of the new EO criteria for diagnosis of CM increases the sensitivity and maintains the specificity of decision making, and therefore should be adopted in CM management practice.