Factors Related to Migraine Patients' Decisions to Initiate Behavioral Migraine Treatment Following a Headache Specialist's Recommendation: A Prospective Observational Study

Behavioral therapy in migraine: Expanding the therapeutic arsenal

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The US Headache Consortium developed evidence-based guidelines for the treatment of migraine and found grade A evidence in support of behavior therapy (BT). Understanding the mechanisms of BT may improve the management of migraine and reduce its burden.

METHODS

We performed a narrative review to define the current evidence of BT and determine its usefulness in migraine management.

RESULTS

The information was obtained from 116 publications, with 56 of them retrieved through direct searches in PubMed (2011-2020) and the remainder selected by the authors to complete the content. BT might reduce migraine impact by decreasing the sympathetic nervous system's response to stress and increasing pain tolerance. Acting in headache-related surroundings can be improved, together with headache duration and self-efficacy. Applications such as mobile health and electronic health applications can help to carry out healthier lifestyle patterns. Regarding medication overuse, BT seems to be a good choice, with similar results to pharmacological prophylaxis. Advantages of using BT are the lack of adverse effects and the unrestricted use in children, where BT is postulated to be even more effective than the standardized pharmacopeia.

CONCLUSIONS

BT is an interesting tool that can be used as an add-on therapy in migraine. Through BT, the autonomy and empowerment of migraine patients is enhanced. BT may not cure migraine, but it could help to reduce pain severity perception, disability, and migraine impact, adding an emotive and cognitive approach to the perceptive role of pharmacopeia. Thus, a better approach in migraine, implementing specific therapeutic management, can improve migraine control.

Factors Associated with Patient Adherence to Biofeedback Therapy Referral for Migraine: An Observational Study

Biofeedback has Grade A evidence for the treatment of migraine, yet few studies have examined the factors associated with patients' decisions to pursue biofeedback treatment recommendations. We sought to examine reasons for adherence or non-adherence to referral to biofeedback therapy as treatment for migraine. Patients with migraine who had been referred for biofeedback by a headache specialist/behavioral neurologist were interviewed in person or via Webex. Patients completed an enrollment questionnaire addressing demographics and questions related to their headache histories. At one month, patients were sent a follow-up questionnaire via REDCap and asked if they had pursued the recommendation for biofeedback therapy, their reasons for their decision, and their impressions about biofeedback for those who pursued it. Nearly two-thirds (65%; 33/51) of patients responded at one month. Of these, fewer than half (45%, 15/33) had contacted biofeedback providers, and only 18% (6/33) completed a biofeedback session. Common themes emerged for patients who did not pursue biofeedback, including feeling that they did not have time, concern for financial obstacles (e.g., treatment cost and/or insurance coverage), and having difficulty scheduling an appointment due to limited provider availability. When asked about their preference between type of biofeedback provider (e.g., a physical therapist or psychologist), qualitative responses were mixed; many patients indicated no preference as long as they took insurance and/or were experienced, while others indicated a specific preference for a physical therapist or psychologist due to familiarity, or prior experiences with that kind of provider. Patients with migraine referred for biofeedback therapy face numerous obstacles to pursuing treatment.

The Headache Psychologists' Role in Pediatric and Adult Headache Care: A Qualitative Study of Expert Practitioners

OBJECTIVE

We examined the perspectives of expert headache psychologists to inform best practices for integrating headache psychologists into the care of children and adults with headache disorders within medical settings.

BACKGROUND

Headache disorders are prevalent, chronic, and disabling neurological conditions. As clinical providers trained in evidence-based behavior change interventions with expertise in headache disorders, headache psychologists are uniquely positioned to provide behavioral headache treatment.

METHODS

In 2020, we conducted semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of expert headache psychologists working across the United States. Open-ended questions focused on their roles, clinical flow, and treatment content. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, de-identified, and analyzed using a rapid qualitative analysis method.

RESULTS

We interviewed seven expert headache psychologists who have worked for an average of 18 years in outpatient settings with pediatric (n = 4) and adult (n = 3) patients with headache. The themes that emerged across the clinical workflow related to key components of behavioral headache treatment, effective behavioral treatment referral practices, and barriers to patient engagement. The expert headache psychologists offered evidence-based behavioral headache interventions such as biofeedback, relaxation training, and cognitive behavioral therapy emphasizing lifestyle modification as standalone options or concurrently with pharmacological treatment and were of brief duration. Participants reported many of their patients appeared reluctant to seek behavioral treatment for headache. Participants believed referrals were most effective when the referring provider explained to the patient the rationale for behavioral treatment, treatment content, and positive impact on headache activity, functioning, and quality of life. Barriers cited by participants to integrating headache psychology into headache care included the paucity of psychologists with specialized headache training, lack of insurance reimbursement, limited patient time to seek behavioral treatment, and inadequate patient knowledge of what behavioral treatment entails.

CONCLUSION

Headache psychologists are often core members of multidisciplinary headache teams offering short-term, evidence-based behavioral interventions, both as a standalone treatment or in conjunction with pharmacotherapy. However, barriers to care persist. Enhancing referring providers' familiarity with psychologists' role in headache care may aid successful referrals for behavioral interventions for headache.

Rate and Predictors of Patients with Chronic Pain Establishing Care with Pain Psychology Following Pain Physician Referral

OBJECTIVE

To determine, among patients with chronic pain who had received pain physician referral to pain psychology, the rate of establishing care and factors related to establishing care with pain psychology.

DESIGN

Retrospective study.

SETTING

Academic tertiary care center.

SUBJECTS

Patients from the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) Center for Pain Medicine.

METHODS

This was an institutional review board-approved, retrospective study of 150 consecutive referrals of unique patients from UCSD Pain Medicine to UCSD Pain Psychology.

RESULTS

Of 150 patients referred to pain psychology, 74 (49.3%) established care with pain psychology. Of 98 patients who had previously seen mental health services, 58 established care with pain psychology (59.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 49% to 69%), whereas of 52 patients who had not previously seen mental health services, 16 established care with pain psychology (30.8%; 95% CI: 18% to 43%) (odds ratio [OR] 3.26; 95% CI: 1.60 to 6.66). In the patient subset with depression and/or anxiety, of 82 patients who had previously seen mental health services, 47 established care with pain psychology (57.3%; 95% CI: 47% to 68%), whereas of 20 patients who had not previously seen mental health services, three established care with pain psychology (15%; 95% CI: -1% to 31%) (OR 7.61; 95% CI: 2.07 to 28.01). Of 96 patients referred for general pain psychology evaluations, 43 established care (45%; 95% CI: 35% to 55%), whereas of 38 patients referred for preprocedural evaluation for an implantable device, 24 established care (63%; 95% CI: 48% to 78%).

CONCLUSION

Patients are significantly more likely to establish care with pain psychology if they have previously seen a mental health professional. This was even more marked among the patient subset with a history of depression and/or anxiety who had engaged in mental health services than among those with a history of depression and/or anxiety who had not engaged in mental health services. Whether referral was for general psychological evaluation or preprocedural evaluation for an implantable device did not significantly influence whether patients established care. Targeted interventions are needed to improve the likelihood of patients engaging with pain psychology services.

Essential components of care in a multidisciplinary headache center: Perspectives from headache neurology specialists

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Comprehensive headache care involves numerous specialties and components that have not been well documented or standardized. This study aimed to elicit best practices and characterize important elements of care to be provided in multidisciplinary headache centers.

METHODS

Qualitative, semi-structured telephone interviews with a purposive sample of headache neurology specialists from across the US, using open-ended questions. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded. Coded data were further analyzed using immersion/crystallization techniques for final interpretation.

RESULTS

Mean years providing headache care was 17.7 (SD = 10.6). Twelve of the 13 participants held United Council for Neurologic Subspecialties headache certification. Six described their practice site as providing multidisciplinary headache care. Participants explained most of their patients had seen multiple doctors over many years, and had tried numerous unsuccessful treatments. They noted patients with chronic headache frequently present with comorbidities and become stigmatized. All participants asserted successful care depends on taking time to talk with and listen to patients, gain understanding, and earn trust. All participants believed multidisciplinary care is essential within a comprehensive headache center, along with staffing enough headache specialists, implementing detailed headache intake and follow-up protocols, and providing the newest medications, neuromodulation devices, botulinum toxin injections, monoclonal antibodies, nerve blocks and infusions, and treatment from a health psychologist. Other essential services for a headache center are other behavioral health practitioners providing cognitive behavioral therapy, mindfulness, biofeedback and pain management; and autonomic neurology, neuropsychology, vestibular audiology, sleep medicine, physical therapy, occupational therapy, exercise physiology, speech therapy, nutrition, complementary integrative health modalities, and highly trained support staff.

CONCLUSION

While headache neurology specialists form the backbone of headache care, experts interviewed for this study maintained their specialty is just one of many types of care needed to adequately treat patients with chronic headache, and this is best provided in a comprehensive, multidisciplinary center.

Regular Practice of Autogenic Training Reduces Migraine Frequency and Is Associated With Brain Activity Changes in Response to Fearful Visual Stimuli

Several factors can contribute to the development and chronification of migraines, including stress, which is undoubtedly a major trigger. Beyond pharmacotherapy, other treatment methods also exist, including behavioral techniques aiming at reducing patients’ stress response. However, the exact brain mechanisms underlying the efficacy of such methods are poorly understood. Our pilot study examined whether the regular practice of autogenic training (AT) induces functional brain changes and if so, how it could be associated with the improvement of migraine parameters. By exploring neural changes through which AT exerts its effect, we can get closer to the pathomechanism of migraine. In particular, we investigated the effect of a headache-specific AT on brain activation using an implicit face emotion processing functional MRI (fMRI) task in female subjects with and without episodic migraine. Our focus was on migraine- and psychological stress-related brain regions. After a 16-week training course, migraineurs showed decreased activation in the migraine-associated dorsal pons to fearful compared with neutral visual stimuli. We also detected decreasing differences in supplementary motor area (SMA) activation to fearful stimuli, and in posterior insula activation to happy stimuli between healthy subjects and migraineurs. Furthermore, migraineurs reported significantly less migraine attacks. These brain activation changes suggest that AT may influence the activity of brain regions responsible for emotion perception, emotional and motor response integration, as well as cognitive control, while also being able to diminish the activation of regions that have an active role in migraine attacks. Improvements induced by the training and the underlying neurophysiological mechanisms are additional arguments in favor of evidence-based personalized behavioral therapies.

The use of virtual complementary and integrative therapies by neurology outpatients: An exploratory analysis of two cross-sectional studies assessing the use of technology as treatment in an academic neurology department in New York City

Background

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, about half of patients from populations that sought care in neurology tried complementary and integrative therapies (CITs). With the increased utilization of telehealth services, we sought to determine whether patients also increased their use of virtual CITs.

Methods

We examined datasets from two separate cross-sectional surveys that included cohorts of patients with neurological disorders. One was a dataset from a study that examined patient and provider experiences with teleneurology visits; the other was a study that assessed patients with a history of COVID-19 infection who presented for neurologic evaluation. We assessed and reported the use of virtual (and non-virtual) CITs using descriptive statistics, and determined whether there were clinical characteristics that predicted the use of CITs using logistic regression analyses.

Findings

Patients who postponed medical treatment for non-COVID-19-related problems during the pandemic were more likely to seek CITs. Virtual exercise, virtual psychotherapy, and relaxation/meditation smartphone applications were the most frequent types of virtual CITs chosen by patients. In both studies, age was a key demographic factor associated with mobile/virtual CIT usage.

Interpretations

Our investigation demonstrates that virtual CIT-related technologies were utilized in the treatment of neurologic conditions during the pandemic, particularly by those patients who deferred non-COVID-related care.

Underuse of Behavioral Treatments for Headache: a Narrative Review Examining Societal and Cultural Factors

Migraine affects over 40 million Americans and is the world's second most disabling condition. As the majority of medical care for migraine occurs in primary care settings, not in neurology nor headache subspecialty practices, healthcare system interventions should focus on primary care. Though there is grade A evidence for behavioral treatment (e.g., biofeedback, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), and relaxation techniques) for migraine, these treatments are underutilized. Behavioral treatments may be a valuable alternative to opioids, which remain widely used for migraine, despite the US opioid epidemic and guidelines that recommend against them. Identifying and removing barriers to the use of headache behavioral therapy could help reduce the disability as well as the personal and social costs of migraine. These techniques will have their greatest impact if offered in primary care settings to the lower socioeconomic status groups at greatest risk for migraine. We review the societal and cultural challenges that impose barriers to optimal use of non-pharmacological treatment services. These barriers include insufficient knowledge of migraine/headache behavioral treatments and insufficient availability of clinicians trained in non-pharmacological treatment delivery; limited access in underserved communities; financial burden; and stigma associated with both headache and mental health diagnoses and treatment. For each barrier, we discuss potential approaches to minimizing its effect and thus enhancing non-pharmacological treatment utilization.Case ExampleA 25-year-old graduate student with a prior history of headaches in college is attending school in the evenings while working a full-time job. Now, his headaches have significant nausea and photophobia. They are twice weekly and are disabling enough that he is unable to complete homework assignments. He does not understand why the headaches occur on Saturdays when he pushes through all week to get through his examinations that take place on Friday evenings. He tried two different migraine preventive medications, but neither led to the 50% reduction in headache days his doctor had hoped for. His doctor had suggested cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) before initiating the medications, but he had been too busy to attend the appointments, and the challenges in finding an in-network provider proved difficult. Now with the worsening headaches, he opted for the CBT and by the fifth week had already noted improvements in his headache frequency and intensity.

Telerehabilitation for Headache Management

Headache is one of the most disabling conditions in the world. Despite plentiful evidence supporting rehabilitation strategies, headache is significantly underassessed and undertreated. Obstacles to headache care include lack of available expertise in headache management, few available resources for effective assessment and treatment, and cost and disability that preclude treatment seeking in patients with headache. Telerehabilitation can allow providers to access expert consultation and gives patients easier access to assessment and treatment. This article covers existing telerehabilitation options for headache management and explores the strength of evidence supporting these approaches. Risks of telerehabilitation and recommendations for future development are discussed.

Heartrate variability biofeedback for migraine using a smartphone application and sensor: A randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Although hand temperature and electromyograph biofeedback have evidence for migraine prevention, to date, no study has evaluated heartrate variability (HRV) biofeedback for migraine.

METHODS

2-arm randomized trial comparing an 8-week app-based HRV biofeedback (HeartMath) to waitlist control. Feasibility/acceptability outcomes included number and duration of sessions, satisfaction, barriers and adverse events. Primary clinical outcome was Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (MSQv2).

RESULTS

There were 52 participants (26/arm). On average, participants randomized to the Hearthmath group completed 29 sessions (SD = 29, range: 2-86) with an average length of 6:43 min over 36 days (SD = 27, range: 0, 88) before discontinuing. 9/29 reported technology barriers. 43% said that they were likely to recommend Heartmath to others. Average MSQv2 decreases were not significant between the Heartmath and waitlist control (estimate = 0.3, 95% CI = -3.1 - 3.6). High users of Heartmath reported a reduction in MSQv2 at day 30 (-12.3 points, p = 0.010) while low users did not (p = 0.765).

DISCUSSION

App-based HRV biofeedback was feasible and acceptable on a time-limited basis for people with migraine. Changes in the primary clinical outcome did not differ between biofeedback and control; however, high users of the app reported more benefit than low users.

The migraine signature study: Methods and baseline results

Objective

To characterize patients who utilize services for migraine in a large integrated health care network, and describe patterns of care and utilization.

Background

Within health care systems, migraine is a common reason for seeking primary and neurology care, but relatively little is documented about who seeks care and the factors that explain variation in utilization.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study using electronic health record (EHR) data from Sutter Health primary care (PC) patients who had at least one office visit to a PC clinic between 2013 and 2017. Migraine status was ascertained from diagnosis codes and medication orders. Control status was assigned to those with no evidence of care for any type of headache. We divided the primary care migraine cohort into two groups: those who received all their care for migraine from PC (denoted PC‐M) and those who had ≥1 encounter with a neurologist for migraine (denoted N‐M). Migraine cases were also designated as having preexisting migraine if they had an encounter with a migraine diagnosis within (±) 6 months of their first study period PC visit and, otherwise, designated as first migraine consult. Two levels of contrasts included: patients with migraine and controls; and within the group of patients with migraine, PC‐M and N‐M groups. Comorbid conditions were determined from EHR encounter diagnosis codes.

Results

We identified 94,149 patients with migraine (including 21,525 N‐M and 72,624 PC‐M) and 1,248,763 controls. Comorbidities: Proportions of psychiatric [29.8% (n = 28,054) vs. 11.8% (n = 147,043)], autoimmune [(4.4% (n = 4162) vs. 2.6% (n = 31,981)], pain [13.2% (n = 12,439) vs. 5.8% (n = 72,049)], respiratory [24.6% (n = 23,186) vs. 12.3% (n = 153,692)], neurologic [2.9% (n = 2688) vs. 0.9% (n = 11,321)], and cerebrovascular [1.0% (n = 945) vs. 0.6% (n = 7500)] conditions were higher in the migraine group compared to controls, all p < 0.001. Among patients with migraine, the N‐M group was similar to the PC‐M group in sex, age, ethnicity, and marital status, but were more likely to have preexisting migraine (49.9% (n = 10,734) vs. 36.2% (n = 26,317), p < 0.001). Proportions of comorbid conditions were higher among the N‐M group than the PC‐M group {psychiatric [38.5% (n = 8291) vs. 27.2% (n = 19,763)], autoimmune [6.3% (n = 1365) vs. 3.9% (n = 2797)], pain [19.6% (n = 4218) vs. 11.3% (n = 8211)], respiratory [30.3% (n = 6516) vs. 23.0% (n = 16,670)], neurologic [6.0% (n = 1288) vs. 1.9% (n = 1400)], cardiovascular [9.7% (n = 2091) vs. 7.0% (n = 5076)], and cerebrovascular [2.3% (n = 500) vs. 0.6% (n = 445)], all p < 0.001}. Medications: During the study period, 82.6% (n = 77,762) of patients with migraine received ≥1 prescription order for an acute migraine medication [89.4% (n = 19,250) of N‐M vs. 80.6% (n = 58,512) of PC]. Opioids were prescribed to 52.9% (n = 49,837) of patients with migraine [63.5% (n = 13,669) for N‐M and 49.8% (n = 36,168) for PC‐M patients). During the study period, 61.4% (n = 57,810) of patients received ≥1 prescription for a migraine preventive medication [81.4% (n = 17,521) of N‐M and 55.5% (n = 40,289) of PC‐M patients]. The most commonly prescribed classes of preventive medications were antidepressants.

Conclusions

Among patients with migraine in a large health system, those who were also cared for in neurology were more likely to receive both acute and preventive medication migraine orders than those patients who did not see a neurologist, with triptans and antidepressants the most commonly prescribed classes of acute and preventive pharmacotherapies, respectively. Opioids were prescribed to approximately half of the total sample and more common in the N‐M group. Adjusting for demographics, patients with migraine had higher rates of nearly every comorbidity we assessed and were more likely to utilize services compared to those without migraine. Overall, patients with migraine also cared for in neurology practices used more of all health care resource types under consideration and had more medical issues, which may be due in some part to a more severe, frequent and disabling disease state compared to those who sought care exclusively from PC practices.

Smartphone-Delivered Progressive Muscle Relaxation for the Treatment of Migraine in Primary Care: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

Scalable, accessible forms of behavioral therapy for migraine prevention are needed. We assessed the feasibility and acceptability of progressive muscle relaxation (PMR) delivered by a smartphone application (app) in the Primary Care setting.

METHODS

This pilot study was a non-blinded, randomized, parallel-arm controlled trial of adults with migraine and 4+ headache days/month. Eligible participants spoke English and owned a smartphone. All participants were given the RELAXaHEAD app which includes an electronic headache diary. Participants were randomized to receive 1 of the 2 versions of the app-one with PMR and the other without PMR. The primary outcomes were measures of feasibility (adherence to the intervention and diary entries during the 90-day interval) and acceptability (satisfaction levels). We conducted exploratory analyses to determine whether there was a change in Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS) scores or a change in headache days.

RESULTS

Of 139 participants (77 PMR, 62 control), 116 (83%) were female, mean age was 41.7 ± 12.8 years. Most patients 108/139 (78%) had moderate-severe disability. Using a 1-5 Likert scale, participants found the app easy to use (mean 4.2 ± 0.7) and stated that they would be happy to engage in the PMR intervention again (mean 4.3 ± 0.6). For the first 6 weeks, participants practiced PMR 2-4 days/week. Mean per session duration was 11.1 ± 8.3 minutes. Relative to the diary-only group, the PMR group showed a greater non-significant decline in mean MIDAS scores (-8.7 vs -22.7, P = .100) corresponding to a small-moderate mean effect size (Cohen's d = 0.38).

CONCLUSION

Smartphone-delivered PMR may be an acceptable, accessible form of therapy for migraine. Mean effects show a small-moderate mean effect size in disability scores.

Burden of Illness Among People with Migraine and ≥ 4 Monthly Headache Days While Using Acute and/or Preventive Prescription Medications for Migraine

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a chronic disease that reduces health-related quality of life. Little is known about the burden of migraine in individuals who are potential candidates for preventive treatment with ≥ 4 monthly headache days currently using migraine medications.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the burden of migraine among patients reporting ≥ 4 monthly headache days while taking acute and/or preventive migraine medications.

METHODS

In this retrospective, cross-sectional study, data from the 2016 U.S. National Health and Wellness Survey (N = 97,503) compared the burden of migraine among individuals self-reporting a diagnosis of migraine by a health care professional and ≥ 4 monthly headache days while using acute and/or preventive prescription migraine medications to matched nonmigraine controls. Propensity score matching across different variables (e.g., age, gender, and body mass index) was used to identify matched controls from respondents who did not self-report a diagnosis of migraine. Migraine-associated burden was measured by impairment in work productivity and daily activities (Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire), all-cause health care resource utilization (HRU), and all-cause direct and indirect costs.

RESULTS

This analysis included 197 treated migraine patients with ≥ 4 monthly headache days and 197 matched nonmigraine controls. Greater proportions of treated migraine patients reported comorbid depression (58.4% vs. 27.9%, P < 0.001) or generalized anxiety disorder (15.2% vs. 8.6%, P = 0.043) and were on long-term disability (13.7% vs. 5.6%, P = 0.003). Absenteeism (11.8% vs. 6.3%, P = 0.030); presenteeism (36.0% vs. 17.5%, P < 0.001); overall work impairment (41.0% vs. 20.9%, P < 0.001); and activity impairment (45.4% vs. 25.4%, P < 0.001) were greater in treated migraine patients versus nonmigraine controls. Treated migraine patients had higher all-cause HRU and higher all-cause direct ($24,499.90 vs. $15,318.91, P = 0.013) and indirect ($14,770.57 vs. $5,764.93, P < 0.001) costs than nonmigraine controls.

CONCLUSIONS

Treated migraine patients with ≥ 4 monthly headache days reported significantly reduced work productivity and increased all-cause HRU and cost despite migraine treatment compared with nonmigraine controls. These findings highlight unmet needs in the treatment and management of migraine.

DISCLOSURES

This study was funded by Teva Pharmaceutical Industries (Petach Tikva, Israel). Cohen is an employee of Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D (USA); Bell was an employee of Teva Pharmaceutical Industries at the time of this study and holds stock/stock options in Teva Pharmaceutical Industries. Lee is an employee of Kantar, which received funding from Teva Pharmaceutical Industries for data analyses performed for this study. Buse has served as a paid consultant to Amgen/Novartis, Allergan, Biohaven, Eli Lilly, Promius/Dr. Reddy's, and Teva Pharmaceuticals, but she was not compensated financially for work on this study. Yugrakh has received research support from Teva Pharmaceuticals and Cefaly Technology. Lipton has received research support from the NIH, the Migraine Research Foundation, and the National Headache Foundation; holds stock options in eNeura Therapeutics and Biohaven Holdings; serves as consultant, advisory board member, or has received honoraria from the American Academy of Neurology, Alder, Allergan, the American Headache Society, Amgen, Autonomic Technologies, Avanir, Biohaven, BioVision, Boston Scientific, Dr. Reddy's, electroCore, Eli Lilly, eNeura Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Pernix, Pfizer, Supernus, Teva, Trigemina, Vector, and Vedanta. This study was presented as a poster at the American Academy of Neurology 2018 Annual Meeting, April 21-27, 2018, in Los Angeles, CA; PAINWeek 2018, September 4-8, 2018, in Las Vegas, NV; and the 2017 European Headache Federation (EHF) Congress, December 1-3, 2017, in Rome, Italy.

Exploring Emotional Distress, Psychological Traits and Attitudes in Patients with Chronic Migraine Undergoing OnabotulinumtoxinA Prophylaxis versus Withdrawal Treatment

This explorative cross-sectional study aims at exploring emotional distress, psychological profiles, and the attitude towards receiving psychological support in eighty-seven patients with chronic migraine (CM) undergoing OnabotulinumtoxinA prophylactic treatment (OBT-A, n = 40) or withdrawal treatment (WT, n = 47). The outcomes were explored through a specific battery of questionnaires. 25% of patients undergoing OBT-A and almost half of the patients undergoing WT reported psychological distress of at least moderate-severe level, respectively. Coping strategies, self-efficacy, and perceived social support were similar in the two groups. Patients undergoing OBT-A presented lower psychological inflexibility than patients undergoing WT. Predictors of higher psychological distress were low perceived social support by friends, low self-efficacy, and higher avoidance strategies. In both groups, most of the patients evaluated receiving psychological support to be useful (79%). The potential beneficial effects of OBT-A on the severity of symptoms and psychological distress might further support its role in the multidisciplinary management of patients with CM. Identifying patients with psychological vulnerabilities who may benefit from psychological support is relevant in patients with CM.

Feasibility of Smartphone-Delivered Progressive Muscle Relaxation in Persistent Post-Traumatic Headache Patients

Persistent post-traumatic headache (PPTH) is often the most common injury after mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI), reported by 47-95% of patients. Progressive muscle relaxation (PMR) has level A evidence in preventing migraine and tension headaches. However, research on this behavioral therapy for PPTH, let alone smartphone delivered, is limited. We performed a single-arm study of prospective patients calling our Concussion Center between June 2017 and July 2018. Inclusion criteria were that subjects had to meet International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd Edition criteria for PPTH secondary to mTBI, have four or more headache days a month, be age 18-85 years and 3-12 months post-injury, own a smartphone, and not tried headache behavioral therapy within the year. We recorded baseline headache and neuropsychiatric data. Using the RELAXaHEAD smartphone application, which has a headache diary and PMR audio files, participants were instructed to record headache symptoms and practice 20 min of PMR daily. There were three monthly follow-up assessments. There were 49 subjects enrolled. Basic demographics were: 33 (67%) female with mean age 40.1 ± 14.6 [20, 75] years. Of the 49 subjects, 15 (31%) had pre-existing headaches. In 11 (22%) subjects, mTBI was sports related. Subjects reported 17.7 ± 9.3 [4, 31] headache days in the month before enrollment, and 49 (100%) experienced over three concussion symptoms. Participants inputted data in the RELAXaHEAD app on average 18.3 ± 12.0 days [0, 31] the first month. Number of participants who did PMR over four times per week was 12 (24.5%) the first month, 9 (22.5%) the second month, and 6 (15%) the third month. After 3 months, 17 (42.5 %) participants continued doing PMR. Participants cited time constraints, forgetfulness, application glitches, and repetitiveness as obstacles to practicing PMR. It is feasible to get PPTH subjects to practice behavioral therapy through low-cost smartphone-based PMR two times weekly. Future work will assess efficacy and examine how to optimize barriers to PMR.

Characteristics of Neuropsychiatric Mobile Health Trials: Cross-Sectional Analysis of Studies Registered on ClinicalTrials.gov

BACKGROUND

The development of mobile health (mHealth) technologies is progressing at a faster pace than that of the science to evaluate their validity and efficacy. Under the International Committee of Journal Medical Editors (ICMJE) guidelines, clinical trials that prospectively assign people to interventions should be registered with a database before the initiation of the study.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to better understand the smartphone mHealth trials for high-burden neuropsychiatric conditions registered on ClinicalTrials.gov through November 2018, including the number, types, and characteristics of the studies being conducted; the frequency and timing of any outcome changes; and the reporting of results.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of ClinicalTrials.gov for the top 10 most disabling neuropsychiatric conditions and prespecified terms related to mHealth. According to the 2016 World Health Organization Global Burden of Disease Study, the top 10 most disabling neuropsychiatric conditions are (1) stroke, (2) migraine, (3) major depressive disorder, (4) Alzheimer disease and other dementias, (5) anxiety disorders, (6) alcohol use disorders, (7) opioid use disorders, (8) epilepsy, (9) schizophrenia, and (10) other mental and substance use disorders. There were no date, location, or status restrictions.

RESULTS

Our search identified 135 studies. A total of 28.9% (39/135) of studies evaluated interventions for major depressive disorder, 14.1% (19/135) of studies evaluated interventions for alcohol use disorders, 12.6% (17/135) of studies evaluated interventions for stroke, 11.1% (15/135) of studies evaluated interventions for schizophrenia, 8.1% (11/135) of studies evaluated interventions for anxiety disorders, 8.1% (11/135) of studies evaluated interventions for other mental and substance use disorders, 7.4% (10/135) of studies evaluated interventions for opioid use disorders, 3.7% (5/135) of studies evaluated interventions for Alzheimer disease or other dementias, 3.0% (4/135) of studies evaluated interventions for epilepsy, and 3.0% (4/135) of studies evaluated interventions for migraine. The studies were first registered in 2008; more than half of the studies were registered from 2016 to 2018. A total of 18.5% (25/135) of trials had results reported in some publicly accessible location. Across all the studies, the mean estimated enrollment (reported by the study) was 1078, although the median was only 100. In addition, across all the studies, the actual reported enrollment was lower, with a mean of 249 and a median of 80. Only about a quarter of the studies (35/135, 25.9%) were funded by the National Institutes of Health.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the increasing use of health-based technologies, this analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov suggests that only a few apps for high-burden neuropsychiatric conditions are being clinically evaluated in trials.

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.

Mindfulness in migraine: A narrative review

Introduction: Migraine is the second leading cause of disability worldwide, yet many patients are unable to tolerate, benefit from, or afford pharmacological treatment options. Non-pharmacological migraine therapies exist, especially to reduce opioid use, which represents a significant unmet need. Mindfulness-based interventions (MBI) have potential as a non-pharmacological treatment for migraine, primarily through the development of flexible attentional capacity across sensory, cognitive, and emotional experiences.Areas covered: The authors review efficacy and potential mechanisms of MBIs for migraine, including mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) and mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT).Expert opinion: While most mindfulness research studies for migraine to date have been pilot trials, which are small and/or lacked rigor, initial evidence suggests there may be improvements in overall headache-related disability and psychological well-being. Many research questions remain to help target the treatment to patients most likely to benefit, including the ideal dosage, duration, delivery method, responder characteristics, and potential mechanisms and biomarkers. A realistic understanding of these factors is important for patients, providers, and the media. Mindfulness will not 'cure' migraine; however, mindfulness may be an important tool as part of a comprehensive treatment approach to help patients 'mindfully' engage in valued life activities.

A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial to Assess the Impact of Motivational Interviewing on Initiating Behavioral Therapy for Migraine

BACKGROUND

Relaxation, biofeedback, and cognitive behavioral therapy are evidence-based behavioral therapies for migraine. Despite such efficacy, research shows that only about half of patients initiate behavioral therapy recommended by their headache specialists.

OBJECTIVE

Motivational interviewing (MI) is a widely used method to help patients explore and overcome ambivalence to enact positive life changes. We tested the hypothesis that telephone-based MI would improve initiation, scheduling, and attending behavioral therapy for migraine.

METHODS

Single-blind randomized controlled trial comparing telephone-based MI to treatment as usual (TAU). Participants were recruited during their appointments with headache specialists at two sites of a New York City medical center.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

ages from 16 to 80, migraine diagnosis by United Council of Neurologic Subspecialty fellowship trained and/or certified headache specialist, and referral for behavioral therapy for prevention in the appointment of recruitment.

EXCLUSION CRITERIA

having done behavioral therapy for migraine in the past year. Participants in the MI group received up to 5 MI calls. TAU participants were called after 3 months for general follow-up data. The prespecified primary outcome was scheduling a behavioral therapy appointment, and secondary outcomes were initiating and attending a behavioral therapy appointment.

RESULTS

76 patients were enrolled and randomized (MI = 36, TAU = 40). At baseline, the mean number of headache days was 12.0 ± 9.0. Self-reported anxiety was present for 36/52 (69.2%) and depression for 30/52 (57.7%). Follow-up assessments were completed for 77.6% (59/76, MI = 32, TAU = 27). The mean number of MI calls per participant was 2.69 ± 1.56 [0 to 5]. There was a greater likelihood of those in the MI group to initiating an appointment (22/32, 68.8% vs 11/27, 40.7%, P = .0309). There were no differences in appointment scheduling or attendance. Reasons stated for not initiating behavioral therapy were lack of time, lack of insurance/funding, prioritizing other treatments, and travel plans.

CONCLUSIONS

Brief telephone-based MI may improve rates of initiation of behavioral therapy for migraine, but other barriers appear to lessen the impact on scheduling and attending behavioral therapy appointments.

Message Framing and the Willingness to Pursue Behavioral Therapy: A Study of People With Migraine

OBJECTIVE

Behavioral treatments for migraine prevention are safe and effective but underutilized in migraine management. Health message framing may be helpful in guiding patients with treatment decision making. The authors assessed associations between message framing and the willingness to seek migraine behavioral treatment among persons with a diagnosis of migraine headache.

METHODS

A total of 401 individuals (median age=34 years [interquartile range, 12 years]) who screened positive for migraine, as determined by the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention questionnaire, were assessed. Participants were randomly assigned to receive one of four message frames using TurkPrime: specific loss framing (N=101), specific gain framing (N=98), nonspecific loss framing (N=102), and nonspecific gain framing (N=100). The message frames were initially piloted for 56 participants and then revised by a headache specialist, with input from a communications specialist, and randomly distributed to the larger sample.

RESULTS

More than two-thirds of participants (70.3%) were women. The median number of headache days per month was 5 (interquartile range, 5.3). Some of the participants (12.5%) had previously used evidence-based behavioral therapy for migraine. No significant differences in the willingness to pursue behavioral treatment for migraine between the four message framing groups were found. The median for all four types of message frames was 4 (interquartile range, 1; Kruskal-Wallis H, p=0.41).

CONCLUSIONS

Findings revealed that message framing was not associated with willingness to seek behavioral therapy for migraine.

Efficacy of Biofeedback for Medical Conditions: an Evidence Map

BACKGROUND

Biofeedback is increasingly used to treat clinical conditions in a wide range of settings; however, evidence supporting its use remains unclear. The purpose of this evidence map is to illustrate the conditions supported by controlled trials, those that are not, and those in need of more research.

METHODS

We searched multiple data sources (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Epistemonikos, and EBM Reviews through September 2018) for good-quality systematic reviews examining biofeedback for clinical conditions. We included the highest quality, most recent review representing each condition and included only controlled trials from those reviews. We relied on quality ratings reported in included reviews. Outcomes of interest were condition-specific, secondary, and global health outcomes, and harms. For each review, we computed confidence ratings and categorized reported findings as no effect, unclear, or insufficient; evidence of a potential positive effect; or evidence of a positive effect. We present our findings in the form of evidence maps.

RESULTS

We included 16 good-quality systematic reviews examining biofeedback alone or as an adjunctive intervention. We found clear, consistent evidence across a large number of trials that biofeedback can reduce headache pain and can provide benefit as adjunctive therapy to men experiencing urinary incontinence after a prostatectomy. Consistent evidence across fewer trials suggests biofeedback may improve fecal incontinence and stroke recovery. There is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about effects for most conditions including bruxism, labor pain, and Raynaud's. Biofeedback was not beneficial for urinary incontinence in women, nor for hypertension management, but these conclusions are limited by small sample sizes and methodologic limitations of these studies.

DISCUSSION

Available evidence suggests that biofeedback is effective for improving urinary incontinence after prostatectomy and headache, and may provide benefit for fecal incontinence and balance and stroke recovery. Further controlled trials across a wide range of conditions are indicated.

Adherence to Behavioral Therapy for Migraine: Knowledge to Date, Mechanisms for Assessing Adherence, and Methods for Improving Adherence

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In other disease states, adherence to behavioral therapies has gained attention, with a greater amount of studies discussing, defining, and optimizing adherence. For example, a meta-analysis formally discussed adherence in 25 studies of CBT for 11 different disorders, with only 6 of the 25 omitting addressing or defining adherence. Many studies have discussed the use of text messages, graph-based adherence rates, and email/telephone reminders to improve adherence. This paper examined the available literature regarding adherence to behavioral therapy for migraine as well as adherence to similar therapies in other disease states. The goal of this research is to apply lessons learned from adherence to behavioral therapy for other diseases in better understanding how we can improve adherence to behavioral therapy for migraine.

RECENT FINDINGS

Treatment for migraine typically includes both pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic therapies, including progressive muscle relaxation (PMR), cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), and biofeedback. Behavioral therapies have been shown to significantly reduce headache frequency and intensity, but high attrition rates and suboptimal adherence can undermine their efficacy. Traditionally, adherence to behavioral therapy has been defined by self-report, including paper headache diaries and assignments. In person attendance has also been employed as a method of defining and monitoring adherence. With the advent of personal electronics, measurements of adherence have shifted to include electronic-based methods such as computer-based programs and mobile-based therapies. Furthermore, some studies have taken advantage of electronic methods such as email reminders, push notifications, and other mobile-based reminders to optimize adherence. The JITA-I, a novel method of engaging individual patient adherence, has also been suggested as a possible method to improve adherence by tailoring engagement with a mobile health app-based on patient input. These novel methods may be utilized in behavioral therapy for migraine for further optimizing adherence. Few intervention studies to date have addressed the optimal ways to impact adherence to migraine behavioral therapy. Further research is required regarding adherence with behavioral therapies, specifically via mobile health interventions to better understand how to define and improve adherence via this novel forum. Once we are able to understand optimal methods of tracking adherence, we will be better equipped to understand the role of adherence in shaping outcomes for behavioral therapy in migraine.