Evaluation of the 6-item Identify Chronic Migraine screener in a large medical group

The use of clinical scales and PROMs in headache disorders and migraine, summarizing their dissemination and operationalization

Measurements are an essential aspect of scientific research. This review will present clinical scales and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for headache disorders and migraine that have been endorsed by the International Headache Society (IHS) and are intended for use by both physicians and researchers. A clinical scale is a tool to assess a patient's condition or symptoms in a standardized and quantifiable way. Clinical scales are often used in research settings and can be used to track a patient's progress over time, monitor the effectiveness of treatment, and make decisions. They can be self-administered or completed by a healthcare professional. PROMs are tools used to evaluate a patient's health status, symptoms, and quality of life. These measures are completed by the patient and provide valuable information about the patient's perspective and experience of their condition. PROMs are increasingly used in clinical practice and research to improve patient-centered care, patient engagement, and shared decision-making. This review also briefly covers the creation process, testing for reliability and validity, and interpreting the results of the use of clinical scales and PROMs in clinical and research settings in headache disorders. The first step in creating a clinical scale or PROM is to define the purpose of the scale and the population it is intended to assess. The next step is to identify the domains or areas that the scale will assess. Then, the items or questions that will be included in the scale need to be developed. These items should be relevant to the defined purpose and population of the scale and should be worded clearly and concisely. After the items have been developed, the scale or PROM can be administered to a sample of individuals in the target population. This allows researchers to assess the reliability and validity of the scale or PROM, as well as to make any necessary revisions.

Practical Insights on the Identification and Management of Patients with Chronic Migraine

Chronic migraine (CM) is one of the most disabling diseases, and it is commonly misdiagnosed and mistreated. Despite the importance of a timely and accurate diagnosis for the effective management of CM, recent surveys have shown that only 20–25% of individuals with CM receive a correct diagnosis. The obvious consequences of misdiagnosed CM are prolongation of symptoms and their associated effects on disability and health-related quality of life. Additionally, mistreatment of CM can lead to acute medication overuse headache with escalation of headache and end organ damage. Ideally, a diagnosis of CM should be made in the primary care setting, based on a thorough medical history including detailed descriptions of headaches occurring earlier in life as well as current headaches, and the range of headaches (not just the worst headaches). In our experience, it is often equally informative to ask the patient about the number of headache-free days (HFDs) and no accompanying symptoms (i.e., crystal-clear days) to quantify headache days and accurately estimate headache frequency/impact. Headache frequency is important, as this count is one key means of diagnosing CM, which requires ≥ 15 headache days/month, noting that these do not need to be migraine days. A headache day is defined as more than 4 h a day of headache. Comorbidities are common in CM and may affect the treatment choice and increase disability. Every CM patient should be offered a preventive migraine treatment. In this commentary, we provide practical insights and tips for diagnosing CM and cover issues of medication overuse, patient communication, diagnostic testing, and when to make a referral. Our key message to physicians for a patient who comes to the clinic with frequent disabling headaches having features of migraine is to assume CM until proven otherwise.

Real‐world assessment of the relationship between migraine‐related disability and healthcare costs in the United States

Objective

The objective of this study was to determine the associations among migraine disability assessment scores, healthcare resource utilization (HCRU; medical visits and pharmacy use) and direct medical costs among people with episodic migraine in a real‐world setting.

Background

Migraine is a public health concern associated with a substantial economic burden in the United States. However, the association between migraine disability and direct medical costs among people with migraine is unknown.

Method

This retrospective, cohort study used claims and electronic health record data from the Decision Resources Group database. Adults with migraine with or without aura, defined by International Classification of Disease Revision 9 (ICD‐9) or ICD Revision 10 (ICD‐10) codes, and a completed Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS) questionnaire from January 2016 to December 2018 were included (chronic migraine codes not included). The associations of MIDAS score with the cost of HCRU for the 6 months after MIDAS assessment were explored. Results were stratified by treatment setting.

Results

Among 7662 included patients, MIDAS scores were distributed as: 3348 (43.7%; I, little/none), 1107 (14.4%; II, mild), 1225 (16.0%; III, moderate), 893 (11.7%; IVa, severe), and 1089 (14.2%; IVb, very severe). Worsening disability was associated with higher medical costs (adjusted from a multivariable model). In the primary care setting, healthcare visit costs were $206 (95% confidence interval: $144–294) for grade I and $631 ($384–1036) for grade IVb patients; corresponding pharmacy costs were $203 (grade I; $136–301) and $719 (grade IVb; $410–1259). For specialty care (e.g., neurologist), healthcare visits cost $509 ($411–629) for grade I and $885 ($634–1236) for grade IVb patients; corresponding pharmacy costs were $494 (grade I; $378–645) and $1020 (grade IVb; $643–1620).

Conclusion

Higher levels of migraine‐related disability (MIDAS assessed) are associated with increased HCRU costs among Americans with episodic migraine. Migraine disability assessment could be useful in the development, testing, and prescription of cost‐effective treatments for people with high migraine‐related disability.

Evaluation of the 6-item Identify Chronic Migraine screener in a large medical group

Objective

To evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of the 6‐item Identify Chronic Migraine screener (ID‐CM[6]), designed to improve the detection of chronic migraine (CM).

Background

CM is often undertreated and underdiagnosed. Survey‐based studies have found that approximately 75–80% of people meeting criteria for CM do not report having received an accurate diagnosis.

Methods

This study used claims data of patients enrolled in a large medical group who had at least one medical claim with an International Classification of Diseases 9th/10th revision diagnostic code for migraine in the 12‐month prescreening period. The Identify Chronic Migraine survey was administered by e‐mail, in‐person, or over the telephone to all enrolled patients. A Semi‐Structured Diagnostic Interview (SSDI) was administered by telephone by a trained physician. The ID‐CM(6) and SSDI classifications of CM status were compared to evaluate sensitivity and specificity of the ID‐CM(6) screening tool.

Results

The analysis of the ID‐CM(6) screening tool included 109 patients, with 65/109 (59.6%) positive for CM based on the SSDI. The mean (standard deviation) age of the patient sample was 49 (15) years and 100/109 (91.7%) were female. Using the SSDI as the diagnostic gold standard, the ID‐CM(6) had a sensitivity of 70.8% (46/65) and a specificity of 93.2% (41/44).

Conclusion

The ID‐CM(6) demonstrated acceptable sensitivity and good specificity in determining CM status. The results of this analysis support the real‐world utility of the ID‐CM(6) as a simple and useful tool to identify patients with CM.