Migraine disability, healthcare utilization, and expenditures following treatment in a tertiary headache center

Treating the Uninsured and Underinsured with Migraine in the USA

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To define, describe, and identify potential solutions for health disparities in the uninsured and underinsured with migraine in the USA.

RECENT FINDINGS

Uninsured and underinsured patients with migraine experience health disparities in diagnosis and treatment of migraine. Migraine patients have higher healthcare costs and higher employment disability, which contribute to a higher likelihood of uninsured or underinsured status. Uninsured or underinsured status, combined with factors such as race, socioeconomic status, geographic location, and care location, are correlated with delays in or decreased migraine diagnosis and treatment. Migraine prevalence is increased in the uninsured and underinsured. Potential solutions include advocacy for policy changes that improve access to care, increasing awareness and representation of underrepresented groups, providing resources to patients to reduce costs, and active patient engagement in migraine care. Continued efforts from all stakeholders have the potential to reduce health disparities in uninsured and underinsured patients with migraine, reducing disability and improving quality of life.

Ahead of the pain: Where we stand after a decade of growth in United Council for Neurologic Subspecialties-certified headache subspecialists

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the geographic distribution of United States (US) headache subspecialists in 2021 compared to 2012 and analyze trends in distribution of and growth by geography.

INTRODUCTION

Headache disorders are the second-highest cause of disease burden worldwide. Historically, headache disorders have been treated by primary care and emergency physicians, often suboptimally. Our 2012 study identified further disparities in geographic distribution of United Council for Neurologic Subspecialties (UCNS)-certified headache subspecialists.

METHODS

This correlational population study explores the current geographic distribution of and changes in subspecialists by aggregating data from the UCNS, National Health Interview Survey, US Census, Bureau of Economic Analysis, and American Community Survey.

RESULTS

In 2021, there were 692 UCNS-certified headache subspecialists. There continued to be higher subspecialist density in the Northeast (1:34,678) and Midwest (1:55,005), with the highest density in Vermont (1:12,510) and Connecticut (1:20,419). The highest absolute subspecialist increases were in the South (99), California (35), and Texas (25). The highest relative subspecialist increases were in the West (105%), Vermont (500%), and Mississippi (500%). The univariable regressions showed significant associations between number of subspecialists and adult headache population (R²  = 0.797, p < 0.001), between subspecialist density and personal income (R²  = 0.935, p = 0.033), and between growth in subspecialists and poverty rate (R²  = 0.553, p = 0.022). However, the multivariable regressions showed that only the adult population was significantly associated with number of subspecialists (adjusted R²  = 0.806, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Overall, there has been substantial growth in the number of UCNS-certified headache subspecialists in the US, especially relative to growth in adult headache population. Subspecialist density continues to be highest in the Northeast and is associated with higher per capita personal income. However, there has been encouraging growth in geographies that previously had little to no access. These findings represent positive progress, but there is more to be done to both increase access to optimal headache care by subspecialists nationally and decrease geographic disparities in access to care.

A systematic evaluation of primary headache management apps leveraging behavior change techniques

BACKGROUND

Mobile health apps have the potential to promote adherence to headache management through the use of evidence-based behavior change techniques (e.g., self-monitoring). While many headache management apps exist, the extent to which these apps include behavior change techniques remains unknown. Thus, the present study systematically evaluated the content and quality of commercially available headache management apps.

METHODS

Headache apps were identified using a systematic search in the Apple App and Google Play stores. A total of 55 apps were evaluated using the taxonomy of behavior change techniques and app quality using the Mobile App Rating Scale.

RESULTS

Headache management apps included 0-14 behavior change techniques (Mean [M] = 5.89) and 0-8 headache management behavior change techniques (M = 4.29). App quality ranged from 2.84-4.67 (M = 3.73) out of 5.00. Three apps, Migraine Trainer, Easeday: Headache & Migraine, and PainScale, included the highest number of overall and headache management behavior change techniques along with good quality scores.

CONCLUSIONS

While randomized controlled trials are necessary to determine the efficacy of individual headache apps, most existing apps include evidence-based headache management behavior change techniques. Headache apps often focus on either self-monitoring or stress management via relaxation training, suggesting that patients' needs should be used to inform app selection.

Effectiveness of erenumab and onabotulinumtoxinA on acute medication usage and health care resource utilization as migraine prevention in the United States

BACKGROUND: Migraine is a common neurological disease that can have a substantial impact on patients' lives and on society. Erenumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody that targets the calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor, was specifically developed for migraine prevention. The efficacy of erenumab has been established in several clinical trials; however, the real-world comparative effectiveness of erenumab has not been fully investigated. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the real-world impact of erenumab and onabotulinumtoxinA on acute medication usage and health care resource utilization (HCRU) among patients with migraine in the United States. METHODS: This retrospective US claims analysis (Optum's deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart Database) evaluated patients aged at least 18 years diagnosed with migraine who initiated erenumab or onabotulinumtoxinA between May 1, 2018, and September 30, 2019 (index date: first erenumab/onabotulinumtoxinA claim). Cohorts were matched 1:1 using the propensity score (PS) method (greedy match with caliper = 0.1). Stratification was performed based on gender, chronic migraine without aura diagnosis, onabotulinumtoxinA use, and acute/preventive drug use. The impact of erenumab and onabotulinumtoxinA on acute medication usage and HCRU was assessed in the 6-month post-index period. An exploratory analysis assessed the impact of erenumab and onabotulinumtoxinA on a composite endpoint of: (1) outpatient visit with a migraine diagnosis and associated acute medication claim, (2) hospital admission with a primary migraine diagnosis, or (3) emergency department visit with a primary migraine diagnosis. PS-matched data were used for comparative analyses; logistic regression with covariate adjustment was used for dichotomous variables, and a negative binomial model was used for count variables, with odds ratios or rate ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs calculated. RESULTS: Following stratified PS matching, 1,338 patients were included in both cohorts. At 6 months, the adjusted average number of claims per person for any acute medication was significantly lower in the erenumab cohort (1.13 vs 1.29 in the onabotulinumtoxinA cohort; RR = 0.88; 95% CI = 0.80-0.96; P = 0.0069), although the difference in the number of claims for triptans and barbiturates was statistically nonsignificant. The adjusted average number of all-cause and migraine-specific visits per person to health care providers was generally lower in the erenumab cohort compared with the onabotulinumtoxinA cohort. Patients in the erenumab cohort had a significantly lower number of composite events (0.44 vs 0.69 in the onabotulinumtoxinA cohort; RR = 0.63; 95% CI = 0.56-0.71; P < 0.0001). Similarly, the adjusted proportion of patients with any of the 3 composite events was lower in the erenumab cohort (31.7% vs 44.3% in the onabotulinumtoxinA cohort; OR = 0.59; 95% CI = 0.49-0.70; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective claims analysis study, erenumab significantly reduced acute medication usage (opioids and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; any acute medication when analyzed together) and HCRU to a greater extent than onabotulinumtoxinA. DISCLOSURES: This study was supported by Novartis Pharma AG. Novartis employees contributed to the study design, analysis of the data, and the decision to publish the results. Fang, Abdrabboh, Glassberg, Vo, and Ferraris are employed by Novartis. Zhou and Shen are employed by KMK Consulting, Inc., which received funding from Novartis to conduct the study. Tepper reports grants from Allergan, Amgen, ElectroCore, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, Neurolief, Novartis, Satsuma, and Zosano, outside the submitted work; personal fees from Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, American Headache Society, Thomas Jefferson University, Aeon, Align Strategies, Allergan/AbbVie, Alphasights, Amgen, Aperture Venture Partners, Aralez Pharmaceuticals Canada, Axsome Therapeutics, Becker Pharmaceutical Consulting, BioDelivery Sciences International, Biohaven, ClearView Healthcare Partners, CoolTech, CRG, Currax, Decision Resources, DeepBench, DRG, Eli Lilly, Equinox, ExpertConnect, GLG, Guidepoint Global Healthcare Consultancy Group, Health Science Communications, HMP Communications, Impel, InteractiveForums, M3 Global Research, Magellan Rx Management, Medicxi, Navigant Consulting, Neurorelief, Nordic BioTech, Novartis, Pulmatrix, Reckner Healthcare, Relevale, SAI MedPartners, Satsuma, Slingshot Insights, Spherix Global Insights, Sudler and Hennessey, Synapse Medical Communications, System Analytic, Teva, Theranica, Thought Leader Select, Trinity Partners, XOC, Zosano, Krog and Partners, and Lundbeck, outside the submitted work; and CME honoraria from American Academy of Neurology, American Headache Society, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Diamond Headache Clinic, Elsevier, Forefront Collaborative, Hamilton General Hospital, Ontario, Canada, Headache Cooperative of New England, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, Inova, Medical Learning Institute PeerView, Medical Education Speakers Network, Miller Medical Communications, North American Center for CME, Physicians' Education Resource, Rockpointe, ScientiaCME, WebMD/Medscape. The abstract and poster of these results were presented at The Migraine Trust Virtual Symposium (MTIS), October 3-9, 2020.

Care Among Migraine Patients in a Commercially Insured Population

INTRODUCTION

Migraine management is characterized by the poor use of preventive therapy and the overuse of acute medications. An analysis of current treatment patterns in migraineurs is needed to improve care in this patient population. The aim of this study was to describe treatment patterns and healthcare utilization of newly diagnosed migraine patients.

METHODS

This was a retrospective observation study of newly diagnosed migraine patients (no indication of migraine in the past year) identified in the IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters database from 1 January 2010 to 30 June 2014. The final study population comprised persons aged 18-64 years at index (new diagnosis of migraine) with 12 months of continuous enrollment in an insurance plan with medical and pharmacy benefits pre-index and post-index. Treatment patterns and healthcare resource utilization were assessed during the post-index period (at least 12-months).

RESULTS

Of the 1,588,666 migraine patients identified in the database as potentially eligible to participate in the study, 284,719 (17.9%) met the final inclusion criteria. Patients generally used acute and preventive therapies to manage migraine attacks, with most patients using preventive therapy (59.1%). However, 67.9% of those using preventive therapy discontinued the current therapy, with a median time to discontinuation of 5 months. Most of the patients who discontinued preventative therapy also used an acute treatment to manage migraine attacks after discontinuation (77.6%), generally in the year following discontinuation (68.4%). Patients on acute therapies were found to use triptans excessively (1.6%) and other non-migraine-specific acute medications for treatment (7.1%). Acute patients were also at risk of opioid dependence (12.0%) and commonly received opioids or barbiturates as first-line therapy (34.1%).

CONCLUSION

Newly diagnosed migraine patients are not being properly treated, as indicated by their excessive use of acute therapies and short time on preventive treatment before discontinuation of that treatment. Further study of the reasons why patients discontinue preventive therapy (adverse events, no response, etc.) and continue to excessively use acute treatments once their treatment regimen has been established is needed.

Hospital Burden of Migraine in United States Adults: A 15-year National Inpatient Sample Analysis

Background

Migraine headache is associated with high costs, but changes over time of inpatient burden in the United States are unknown. Understanding longitudinal trends is necessary to determine the costs of evolving inpatient treatments that target biological factors in the generation of pain such as vasodilation and aberrant activity of trigeminal neurotransmitters. We report the migraine hospital burden trend in the United States over 15 years.

Methods

Data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample of the Hospitalization Cost and Utilization Project databases were analyzed from 1997 to 2012. Inpatient costs were reported in dollars for the cost to the institution, whereas charges reflect the amount billed. These parameters were trended and the average annual percent change was calculated to illustrate year-to-year changes.

Results

Overall discharges for migraine headache reached a low of 30,761 discharges in 1999, and peaked in 2012 with 54,510 discharges. Average length of stay decreased from 3.5 days in 1997 to 2.8 days in 2012. Total inpatient charges increased from $176 million in 1999 to $1.2 billion in 2012. Inpatient costs totaled $322 million in 2012, with an average daily cost of $2,111.

Conclusions

Inpatient burden rapidly increased over the analyzed period, with hospital charges increasing from $5,939 per admission and $176 million nationwide in 1997, to $21,576 per admission and $1.2 billion nationwide in 2012. This trend provides context for research examining cost-effectiveness and quality of life benefits for current treatments. The study of these parameters together with better prevention and improved outpatient treatment may help alleviate the inpatient burden of migraine.

Cortical morphological changes in chronic migraine in a Taiwanese cohort: Surface- and voxel-based analyses

BACKGROUND

Previous voxel- or surface-based morphometric analysis studies have revealed alterations in cortical structure in patients with chronic migraine, yet with inconsistent results. The discrepancies may be derived partly from the sample heterogeneity. Employing both methods in a clinically homogenous group may provide a clearer view.

METHODS

Structural MRI data from 30 prevention-naïve patients with chronic migraine without medication overuse headache or a history of major depression and 30 healthy controls were analyzed. Vertex-wise (surface-based) or voxel-wise (voxel-based) linear models were applied, after controlling for age and gender, to investigate between-group differences. Averaged cortical thicknesses and volumes from regions showing group differences were correlated with parameters related to clinical profiles.

RESULTS

Surface-based morphometry showed significantly thinner cortices in the bilateral insular cortex, caudal middle frontal gyrus, precentral gyrus, and parietal lobes in patients with chronic migraine relative to healthy controls. Additionally, the number of migraine days in the month preceding MRI examination was correlated negatively with right insular cortical thickness. Voxel-based morphometry (VBM) did not show any group differences or clinical correlations.

CONCLUSION

Patients with chronic migraine without medication overuse headache, major depression, or prior preventive treatment had reduced cortical thickness in regions within the pain-processing network. Compared to voxel-based morphometry, surface-based morphometry analysis may be more sensitive to subtle structural differences between healthy controls and patients with chronic migraine.

Behavioral Therapy Preferences in People With Migraine

BACKGROUND

There are safe and well-tolerated level A evidence-based behavioral therapies for the prevention of migraine. They are biofeedback, cognitive behavioral therapy, and relaxation. However, the behavioral therapies for the prevention of migraine are underutilized.

OBJECTIVES

We sought to examine whether people with migraine with 4 or more headache days a month had preferences regarding the type of delivery of the behavioral therapy (in-person, smartphone based, telephone) and whether they would be willing to pay for in-person behavioral therapy. We also sought to determine the predictors of likelihood to pursue the behavioral therapy.

METHODS

Using a cross-sectional study design, we developed an online survey using TurkPrime, an online survey platform, to assess how likely TurkPrime participants who screened positive for migraine using the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention screen were to pursue different delivery methods of the behavioral therapy. We report descriptive statistics and quantitative analyses.

RESULTS

There were 401 participants. Median age was 34 [IQR: 29, 41] years. More than two thirds of participants (70.3%, 282/401) were women. Median number of headache days/ month was 5 [IQR: 2.83, 8.5]. Some (12.5%, 50/401) used evidence-based behavioral therapy for migraine. The participants reported that they were "somewhat likely" to pursue in-person or smartphone behavioral therapy and behavioral therapy covered by insurance but were neutral about pursuing the telephone-based behavioral therapy. Participants were "not very likely" to pay out of pocket for the behavioral therapy. Migraine-related disability as measured by the MIDAS grading score was associated with likelihood to pursue the behavioral therapy in-person (P = .004), via telephone (P = .015), and via smart phone (P < .001), and covered by insurance (P = .001). However, migraine-related disability was not associated with likelihood to pursue out of pocket (P = .769) behavioral therapy. Pain intensity was predictive of likelihood of pursuing the behavioral therapy for migraine when covered by insurance. Other factors including education, employment, and headache days were not predictors.

CONCLUSION

People with migraine prefer in-person and smartphone-based behavioral therapy to telephone-based behavioral therapy. Migraine-related disability is associated with likelihood to pursue the behavioral therapy (independent of type of delivery of the behavioral therapy-in-person, telephone based or smartphone based). However, participants were not very likely to pay for the behavioral therapy.

Associations Between Headache-Free Days and Patient-Reported Outcomes Among Migraine Patients: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Survey Data in Europe

INTRODUCTION

Migraine imposes a substantial burden on patients, society, and healthcare systems. This study aimed to assess the associations between the number of headache-free days (HFDs) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL), work productivity and activity impairment (WPAI), and healthcare resource utilization (HRU) in patients with migraine in the EU5 (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom).

METHODS

This retrospective cross-sectional study collected survey responses from adults aged ≥ 18 years from the 2017 National Health and Wellness Survey (N = 62,000). Migraine patients with a physician's diagnosis of migraine and who had experienced at least 4 monthly headache days in the prior month were included (N = 1569). Number of HFDs was compared with Short-Form 12-Item Survey Instrument, version 2 (SF-12v2) physical and mental component summary scores (PCS and MCS), Short-Form-6D (SF-6D) and EuroQoL-5D (EQ-5D) scores, WPAI, and HRU in migraine patients. Correlation analyses were conducted to test the bivariate associations, whereas generalized linear models were used for multivariable analyses.

RESULTS

An increase of 1 HFD was associated with average increases of 0.171, 0.306, 0.003, and 0.008 points for MCS, PCS, SF-6D utility score, and EQ-5D index score, respectively (p < 0.001 for all). Extrapolating the results to a tenfold increase in monthly HFDs corresponded to clinically meaningful increases in PCS and EQ-5D scores. An increase of 1 HFD was associated with expected average decreases in absenteeism of 3.9% and presenteeism of 2.1%. Further, an increase of 1 HFD was associated with expected decreases in HCP visits and neurologist visits of 1.0% and 4.7%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

An increase in the number of HFDs was associated with better health-related outcomes in patients suffering from migraine. Further, the results demonstrate a need for more effective treatments that can reduce migraine frequency and thus improve HRQoL, increase work productivity, and reduce both activity impairment and HRU.

FUNDING

Novartis Pharma AG, Switzerland.

Migraine-related healthcare resource use in the emergency department setting: a panel-based chart review in France, Germany, Italy, and Spain

Objective: Migraine is a common, disabling condition typically characterized by severe headache, nausea, and/or light and sound sensitivity. This study assessed migraine-related health resource utilization (HRU) occurring in the emergency room/accident & emergency department (ER/A&E) setting among European patients with 4 or more migraine days per month. Methods: Patient-level clinical and HRU data were collected via chart extraction by ER/A&E physicians in France, Germany, Italy, and Spain. Eligible patients had 4 or more migraine days in the month prior to a migraine-related ER/A&E visit and a history of migraine, among other criteria. The index date for each patient was defined as the date of an ER/A&E visit for migraine on or after January 1, 2013. Physician and ER/A&E characteristics, patient and disease characteristics, treatment history, migraine-medication used, and migraine-related HRU (i.e. procedures) during the ER/A&E visit were assessed. Descriptive analyses were conducted in the pooled population, and a sensitivity analysis was performed by country. Results: A total of 467 eligible patient's charts (120 in France, 120 in Germany, 107 in Italy, and 120 in Spain) were provided by 136 physicians (36 in France, 36 in Germany, 28 in Italy, and 36 in Spain). On average, patients spent nearly 8 hours in the ER/A&E. Approximately 82% of patients received a blood test, 62% received an electrocardiography, and 46% received a cranial computerized tomography scan. Despite the majority of patients already using acute or prophylactic treatment upon visiting the ER/A&E, almost all patients were administered or prescribed migraine treatment during the visit. Approximately 21% of patients were admitted to the hospital, and over half of patients were referred to a neurologist or headache specialist. Conclusions: European patients who had four or more migraine days in the month prior to a migraine-related ER/A&E visit had high HRU associated with the visit.

Erenumab: A First-in-Class Monoclonal Antibody for Migraine Prevention

Objective: To review the pharmacology, efficacy, and safety of the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) inhibitor erenumab for migraine preventive therapy. Data Sources: A MEDLINE/PubMed search (January 2000 to January 2019) was conducted using the keywords erenumab-aooe, erenumab, migraine, migraine prophylaxis, migraine prevention, and chronic migraine. Additional articles were identified by hand from references. Study Selection and Data Extraction: We included English-language articles (excluding poster presentations) evaluating erenumab pharmacology, efficacy, or safety in humans for migraine prevention. Data Synthesis: Erenumab is a CGRP inhibitor that inhibits vasodilation in response to acute migraines, which decreases pain perception during the migraine. Erenumab efficacy and safety has only been compared with placebo, but its reduction in monthly migraine days (MMDs) and medication response (≥50% reduction in MMDs) are comparable to current recommended off-label therapies for migraine prevention in short-term treatment studies. Additionally, erenumab is associated with low adverse event burden with no difference found compared with placebo per published clinical trials. Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice: Erenumab is the first medication approved in the United States for the prevention of migraines in adults. No head-to-head data are available, but existing data suggest that erenumab is at least as effective as current off-label products and with reduced adverse effects. Conclusion: Erenumab is an effective once-monthly injectable agent for migraine prevention in patients with chronic or episodic migraine. It is also effective for patients who have previously failed migraine preventive therapy. Erenumab has a favorable adverse effect profile, which may improve patient adherence.

Estimating the clinical effectiveness and value-based price range of erenumab for the prevention of migraine in patients with prior treatment failures: a US societal perspective

BACKGROUND

Frequent migraine with four or more headache days per month is a common, disabling neurovascular disease. From a US societal perspective, this analysis models the clinical efficacy and estimates the value-based price (VBP) for erenumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody that inhibits the calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor.

METHODS

A Markov health state transition model was developed to estimate the incremental costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and value-based price range for erenumab in migraine prevention. The model comprises "on preventive treatment", "off preventive treatment", and "death" health states across a 10-year time horizon. The evaluation compared erenumab to no preventive treatment in episodic and chronic migraine patients that have failed at least one preventive therapy. Therapeutic benefits are based on estimated changes in monthly migraine days (MMD) from erenumab pivotal clinical trials and a network meta-analysis of migraine studies. Utilities were estimated using previously published mapping algorithms. A VBP analysis was performed to identify maximum erenumab annual prices at willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of $100,000-$200,000 per QALY. Estimates of VBP under different scenarios such as choice of different comparators, assumptions around inclusion of placebo effect, and exclusion of work productivity losses were also generated.

RESULTS

Erenumab resulted in incremental QALYs of 0.185 vs supportive care (SC) and estimated cost offsets due to reduced MMD of $8,482 over 10 years, with an average duration of treatment of 2.01 years. The estimated VBP at WTP thresholds of $100,000-$200,000 for erenumab compared to SC ranged from $14,238-$23,998. VBP estimates including the placebo effect and excluding work productivity ranged from $7,445-$13,809; increasing to $12,151-$18,589 with onabotulinumtoxinA as a comparator in chronic migraine.

CONCLUSION

Erenumab is predicted to reduce migraine-related direct and indirect costs, and increase QALYs compared to SC.

Bowenwork for Migraine Relief: a Case Report

INTRODUCTION

Migraine is a complex neurological disorder characterized by episodic, neurogenic, cerebrovascular inflammation and hypersensitization of brain tissues and the central nervous system, causing severe pain and debility. Research literature points mostly to pharmaceutical prophylactic and symptomatic treatments, nonpharmaceutical, complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) approaches, acupuncture, massage and bodywork studies, and none has been published on Bowenwork for migraine intervention. This prospective case report describes one migraineur's response to Bowenwork (a soft-tissue bodywork technique) with cessation of migraine, neck pain, and analgesic consumption, and improved well-being and activity function.

METHODS

The client received 14 Bowenwork sessions over a four-month period using the self-reporting Measure Yourself Medical Outcome Profile version 2 (MYMOP2) to evaluate clinically meaningful changes. Baseline MYMOP2 data were recorded prior to the first and subsequent Bowenwork sessions to track changes in migraine and neck pain occurrences, other symptoms, medication use, functional ability and sense of well-being. Specific Bowenwork procedures were applied in each session to address various symptoms. The client did not receive other migraine treatment during this study.

PARTICIPANT

A 66-year-old Caucasian female with a history of debilitating migraine since childhood, and severe neck pain and jaw injuries resulting from two motor vehicle accidents (MVAs) sustained as an adult. She had previously sought medical, pharmaceutical and CAM treatments for migraine, neck pain, and right-sided thoracic outlet syndrome (TOS) symptoms, with no satisfactory relief.

RESULTS

The client progressively reported decreased migraine and neck pain until acquiring a respiratory infection with prolonged coughing spells causing symptoms to recur (session 11). Prior to session 12, she experienced an allergic reaction to ingesting an unknown food allergen, requiring three days of prednisone and Benadryl treatment, exacerbating neck pain, but not migraine. At session 14, her MYMOP2 data showed no migraine, neck pain or medication use, improved activity function, and sense of well-being. Symptoms in her right arm and thumb persisted to a lesser extent.

CONCLUSION

Bowenwork progressively offered migraine and neck pain relief for one chronic migraineur, with multiple somatic symptoms. Extenuating factors (jaw tension, TOS, respiratory infection, and allergic reaction) added complexity in monitoring progress and selecting appropriate Bowenwork procedures. Further research on Bowenwork's efficacy for migraine treatment on larger populations is needed.