Considerations for management of migraine symptoms in the primary care setting

Migraine Patient Care Model Preferences in a Community Practice

Background and Objectives

Developing high-value care models with limited resources for large populations of individuals with migraine requires advanced understanding of patient preferences for care delivery methods. In this study, we aimed to inform the development of migraine care models by assessing patient preferences for types of care delivery and determining differences based on migraine frequency and disability.

Methods

We analyzed unpublished data from a cross-sectional survey of 516 randomly selected individuals with migraine within a community practice associated with Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.

Results

Individuals with chronic migraine, compared with those with episodic migraine, were more likely to prefer a visit with a neurologist (p = 0.0005), synchronous telephone conference with primary care provider (PCP) and neurologist (p = 0.0102), and a written migraine action plan in the medical record (p = 0.0343). Compared with those with mild/no disability, individuals with moderate-to-severe disability were more likely to prefer a visit with a neurologist (p < 0.0001), synchronous video or telephone conference with PCP and neurologist (p < 0.0001), PCP communication with neurologist (p = 0.0099), electronic message to primary care team with access to neurologist (p = 0.0216), and written action plan in the medical record (p = 0.0011). Collectively, individuals most preferred telephone follow-up and least preferred communications with a nurse or pharmacist or generalized education (all p < 0.001).

Discussion

We observed differences in migraine care delivery preferences between migraine frequency and level of migraine disability. Observations support development of care pathways that include a written migraine action plan, primary care-neurology collaboration including nontraditional interactions, and prioritization of traditional neurology consultation for the most disabled patients.

Digital headache self-management interventions for patients with a primary headache disorder: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

This article systematically reviews the empirical literature examining the efficacy of digital headache management interventions for patients with a primary headache disorder.

BACKGROUND

Digital headache management interventions provide opportunities to improve access to behavioral headache interventions to underserved groups.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, and EBSCO (PsycInfo, Education Research Complete, ERIC, Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection) and reference review was conducted. Included studies had to recruit a sample with a primary headache diagnosis, be a randomized controlled trial including a digital component, assess a headache outcome (i.e., frequency, duration, severity, intensity, disability) or quality of life, and be published in English. Two authors independently extracted data for included studies. The methodological quality of studies was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies with unique interventions met inclusion criteria. More than half of the studies were pilots; however, nearly 70% (9/13) demonstrated significant between-group or within-group improvements on one or more headache-related outcomes. All interventions included some form of relaxation training and the majority were delivered via interactive website. While fewer than half the studies report participant race and/or ethnicity, of those that do, 83% (5/6) reported a predominately White/Caucasian sample.

CONCLUSIONS

Efficacy testing of digital headache interventions is in its infancy with the majority of these studies relying on pilot studies with small samples comprised of homogenous patient populations. Interactive websites were the most common digital medium to deliver digital headache management interventions and have demonstrated promising results. Further testing using large-scale randomized controlled trials and exploration of other digital tools is warranted. Future studies with more diverse samples are needed to inform health equity of digital headache interventions.

Reduction in migraine-associated burden after eptinezumab treatment in patients with chronic migraine

Objective

To examine changes in the occurrence, severity, and symptoms of headache episodes in patients with chronic migraine following eptinezumab treatment.

Methods

PROMISE-2 was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial that randomized adults with chronic migraine to eptinezumab 100 mg, 300 mg, or placebo IV every 12 weeks for up to 24 weeks (2 infusions). Headache episodes (migraine and non-migraine) and their characteristics were reported in daily electronic diaries during the 28-day baseline and throughout the 24-week treatment period.

Results

A total of 1072 patients were included in this post hoc analysis. Mean monthly headache days decreased by 8.9 (100 mg) and 9.7 (300 mg) compared to a 7.3 decrease in placebo over the first 4-week interval post initial dose and reductions were maintained throughout the 24-week treatment period. Mean monthly headache episodes also decreased by 8.4 (100 mg) and 9.0 (300 mg) compared to a decrease of 7.1 with placebo. The proportion of headache episodes that were migraine attacks decreased by 11.2% (100 mg), 12.4% (300 mg), and 3.9% (placebo), and among remaining headaches decreases in severe pain, nausea, phonophobia, photophobia, and physical activity limitations were numerically greater than placebo.

Conclusions

Patients with chronic migraine treated with eptinezumab decreased the monthly severity and frequency of headache days and episodes more than placebo. Beyond decreased headache frequency, patients treated with eptinezumab reported a reduction in the percent of remaining headache episodes that were migraine attacks, as well as a decrease in burdensome symptoms of headache episodes, indicating additional decreased headache severity after eptinezumab treatment.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02974153; registered November 23, 2016.

Management of Migraine and the Accessibility of Specialist Care: Findings from an Extended Multinational Survey (My Migraine Center Survey)

INTRODUCTION

The parent study was a survey in 28 headache centers (6 countries) which identified five potential root causes for long waiting lists that limit patient access to specialist care. Here we performed an extension of the parent study to increase the panel of centers contacted, the representativeness of the analysis, and the statistical validity of the results, and to explore the role of dedicated headache clinics, triage, and specialized nurses.

METHODS

We conducted a 19-question survey using a sample of 239 headache centers (16 countries). The five-area framework identified in the parent study was confirmed and further developed by describing treatment center archetypes according to their setting (general neurology versus dedicated clinic) and resources available within the center (number of healthcare professional [HCPs] full-time-equivalent positions).

RESULTS

In total, 474 HCPs were interviewed across 16 countries. The proportion of patients with chronic migraine and episodic migraine varied across centers and countries. There was limited access to specialized centers in this enlarged sample; with global average waiting list of 3.7 months for the first visit and 2.5 months for the follow-up visit. Long waiting lists for headache patient care is a major issue in several countries, with the waiting lists for new patient visits extending up to 14 months. The presence of a dedicated nurse was correlated positively with the use of triage for prioritization of patient access (correlation coefficient: 0.85) and completing migraine diary (0.71).

CONCLUSION

This study confirmed differences across treatment center archetypes in terms of patients, waiting lists, level of delegation to nurse, and patient education and compliance, and provides support for the potential benefit of dedicated clinical settings for headache patients. The survey highlighted the potential role of nurses in patient education and waiting list prioritization, consequently benefiting headache centers.

The current state of acute treatment for migraine in adults in the United States

Migraine is a common and disabling disorder with substantial personal, social, and economic burden that affects 37 million people in the United States. Risk factors for migraine include age, sex, and genetics. The goal of acute treatment of migraine attacks is to stop the pain and associated symptoms of the migraine attack and return the patient to normal function. The acute treatment landscape for migraine has recently expanded beyond the standard nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, analgesics, triptans, ergotamines, and combination therapies, to include neuromodulation devices, and recently approved calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonists and a serotonin (5-HT_1F) receptor agonist. Unmet acute treatment needs still exist due to lack of efficacy, unwanted side effects, or contraindication to treatment. Effective treatment of migraine requires the clinician to assess the patient, make an accurate diagnosis, and then offer appropriate therapy based on the patient's medical history, comorbidities, and preferences, as well as published clinical evidence. The objective of this narrative review is to familiarize primary care clinicians with the variety of acute treatment options available in the United States today based on clinical trial findings, meta-analyses, evidence-based guidelines, and professional society consensus statements.

The Therapeutic Impact of New Migraine Discoveries

BACKGROUND

Migraine is one of the most disabling neurological conditions and associated with high socio-economic costs. Though certain aspects of the pathomechanism of migraine are still incompletely understood, the leading hypothesis implicates the role of the activation of the trigeminovascular system. Triptans are considered to be the current gold standard therapy for migraine attacks; however, their use in clinical practice is limited. Prophylactic treatment includes non-specific approaches for migraine prevention. All these support the need for future studies in order to develop innovative anti-migraine drugs.

OBJECTIVE

The present study is a review of the current literature regarding new therapeutic lines in migraine research.

METHODS

A systematic literature search in the database of PUBMED was conducted concerning therapeutic strategies in a migraine published until July 2017.

RESULTS

Ongoing clinical trials with 5-HT1F receptor agonists and glutamate receptor antagonists offer promising new aspects for acute migraine treatment. Monoclonal antibodies against CGRP and the CGRP receptor are revolutionary in preventive treatment; however, further long-term studies are needed to test their tolerability. Preclinical studies show positive results with PACAP- and kynurenic acid-related treatments. Other promising therapeutic strategies (such as those targeting TRPV1, substance P, NOS, or orexin) have failed to show efficacy in clinical trials.

CONCLUSION

Due to their side-effects, current therapeutic approaches are not suitable for all migraine patients. Especially frequent episodic and chronic migraine represents a therapeutic challenge for researchers. Clinical and preclinical studies are needed to untangle the pathophysiology of migraine in order to develop new and migraine-specific therapies.

Sports, physical activity and headache in the classical age: historical descriptions from the first sports textbook, "De arte gymnastica", by Girolamo Mercuriale

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The relationship between physical activity, sports and headache presents a growing interest, testified by numerous papers recently published. The correlation between headache and sporting activities or physical exercise dates back to the classical age. We aim at promoting the development of more studies focused on the relationship between headache and physical activity.

METHODS

We analysed the book "De arte gymnastica", written by Girolamo Mercuriale (Forlì, Italy, 1530-1606), and considered the first "sports medical textbook". We discuss these classical literature findings in the light of the International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition.

RESULTS

The Author's work derives from the systematic revision of Greek, Roman and Arabic literatures about the matter. Despite some references to inveterate headaches or cold-related pains, Mercuriale does not gather specific clinical characterisations of different types of headache. However, interestingly, he reports detailed descriptions of how the same sport, or the same physical activity, could cause or give relief from head pain, depending on the precise way of practising. Mercuriale summarises 18 sports or physical activities that can give relief from headache; conversely, running or heavy activities, such as boxing, appear among the 12 contraindicated sports for people suffering from headache.

CONCLUSIONS

"De arte gymnastica", by Girolamo Mercuriale, is the first textbook on sports medicine. Headache if often cited along the treatise: different sports and physical activities, or various ways of practising the same action could produce opposite effects for people suffering from headache.

The effects of aerobic exercise for persons with migraine and co-existing tension-type headache and neck pain. A randomized, controlled, clinical trial

Aim To evaluate aerobic exercise in migraine and co-existing tension-type headache and neck pain. Methods Consecutively recruited persons with migraine and co-existing tension-type headache and neck pain were randomized into an exercise group or control group. Aerobic exercise consisted of bike/cross-trainer/brisk walking for 45 minutes, three times/week. Controls continued usual daily activities. Pain frequency, intensity, and duration; physical fitness, level of physical activity, well-being and ability to engage in daily activities were assessed at baseline, after treatment and at follow-up. Results Fifty-two persons completed the study. Significant between-group improvements for the exercise group were found for physical fitness, level of physical activity, migraine burden and the ability to engage in physical activity because of reduced impact of tension-type headache and neck pain. Within the exercise group, significant reduction was found for migraine frequency, pain intensity and duration, neck pain intensity, and burden of migraine; an increase in physical fitness and well-being. Conclusions Exercise significantly reduced the burden of migraine and the ability to engage in physical activity because of reduced impact of tension-type headache and neck pain. Exercise also reduced migraine frequency, pain intensity and duration, although this was not significant compared to controls. These results emphasize the importance of regular aerobic exercise for reduction of migraine burden.

Level of physical activity, well-being, stress and self-rated health in persons with migraine and co-existing tension-type headache and neck pain

Background

The prevalence of migraine with co-existing tension-type headache and neck pain is high in the general population. However, there is very little literature on the characteristics of these combined conditions. The aim of this study was to investigate a) the prevalence of migraine with co-existing tension-type headache and neck pain in a clinic-based sample, b) the level of physical activity, psychological well-being, perceived stress and self-rated health in persons with migraine and co-existing tension-type headache and neck pain compared to healthy controls, c) the perceived ability of persons with migraine and co-existing tension-type headache and neck pain to perform physical activity, and d) which among the three conditions (migraine, tension-type headache or neck pain) is rated as the most burdensome condition.

Methods

The study was conducted at a tertiary referral specialised headache centre where questionnaires on physical activity, psychological well-being, perceived stress and self-rated health were completed by 148 persons with migraine and 100 healthy controls matched by sex and average age. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to assess characteristics of migraine, tension-type headache and neck pain.

Results

Out of 148 persons with migraine, 100 (67%) suffered from co-existing tension-type headache and neck pain. Only 11% suffered from migraine only. Persons with migraine and co-existing tension-type headache and neck pain had lower level of physical activity and psychological well-being, higher level of perceived stress and poorer self-rated health compared to healthy controls. They reported reduced ability to perform physical activity owing to migraine (high degree), tension-type headache (moderate degree) and neck pain (low degree). The most burdensome condition was migraine, followed by tension-type headache and neck pain.

Conclusions

Migraine with co-existing tension-type headache and neck pain was highly prevalent in a clinic-based sample. Persons with migraine and co-existing tension-type headache and neck pain may require more individually tailored interventions to increase the level of physical activity, and to improve psychological well-being, perceived stress and self-rated health.