Validity and reliability of the Migraine-Treatment Optimization Questionnaire

Monoclonal antibodies targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway improve the effectiveness of acute medication-a real-world study

BACKGROUND

One of the aims of migraine prevention is to improve response to acute migraine treatments. The aim of the present study was to assess whether monoclonal antibodies targeting the CGRP pathway (CGRP-mAbs) can improve the perceived efficacy of acute treatments.

METHODS

We included and followed up patients with chronic or episodic migraine from the Headache Centers of Avezzano-L'Aquila and Naples treated with CGRP-mAbs from March 2021 to December 2022. All patients filled out the Migraine Treatment Optimization Questionnaire (MTOQ), the Headache Impact Test (HIT-6), and the Migraine Impact and Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS) at baseline and 3-6 months after the start of treatment with CGRP-mAbs.

RESULTS

Sixty-five patients (81.3%) completed the 6-month follow-up. Most patients were female (55, 84.6%), with a median age of 46 years (IQR 39-56). Median MTOQ score increased from 8 (interquartile range [IQR] 4-13) at baseline to 15 (IQR 11-17) at 3 months (p < 0.001) and 16 (IQR 13-17) at the 6-month follow-up (p < 0.001). Median migraine days over 90-day periods decreased from 40 (IQR 24-60) to 24 (IQR 15-30) at 3 months (p < 0.001) and to 20 (IQR 12-24) at 6 months (p < 0.001). Median monthly intake of acute medication decreased from 55 doses (IQR 29-80.5) to 24 doses (IQR 15-40) at 3 months and 18 doses (IQR 11-30) at 6 months (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

We showed that 6 months of preventive treatment with CGRP-mAbs led to a significantly better effectiveness of acute treatments, paralleled by decreased monthly migraine days and acute treatment intake.

Acute Treatment Patterns, Migraine Burden, and Healthcare Resource Use in People With Migraine: Results From the OVERCOME (EU) Observational Study

INTRODUCTION

The ObserVational survey of the Epidemiology, tReatment and Care Of MigrainE (OVERCOME) European Union (EU) is part of an overarching population-based study program that also includes the United States and Japan. Here, we report data on the migraine/severe headache burden and the use of acute medication and healthcare resources in Spain and Germany.

METHODS

OVERCOME (EU) was an online, non-interventional, cross-sectional survey conducted in adults in Spain and Germany between October 2020 and February 2021. A total migraine cohort was established based on health survey participants who reported headache/migraine in the last 12 months AND identified as having migraine based on modified International Classification of Headache Disorders, third edition criteria OR self-reported physician diagnosis. Data were analyzed for the total migraine cohort and the subcohort with moderate to severe headache attacks, with average pain severity ≥ 5 points, pain duration ≥ 4 h, and at least moderate disability due to migraine [Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) score ≥ 11] over the past 3 months.

RESULTS

Pain of moderate or severe intensity was the most frequent symptom in the total migraine cohort (n = 19,103/20,756; 92.0%). Proportions of participants reporting severe disability (MIDAS Grade IV), poorer quality of life (QoL; Migraine-Specific QoL Questionnaire), and higher interictal burden (Migraine Interictal Burden Scale-4), generally increased with number of headache days (HDs)/month. Most participants (92.5%) reported current acute migraine/severe headache medication use, although only 39.0% were using triptans. In the moderate to severe attacks subcohort (n = 5547), 48.4% were using triptans, with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs the most common acute medication. The moderate to severe attacks subcohort also reported poorer QoL and greater pain and disability with increasing HDs/month, although severe interictal burden was reported for ~ 60% of participants regardless of HDs/month. Treatment satisfaction (six-item migraine Treatment Optimization Questionnaire) in those using triptans was generally poor in both total and subcohorts.

CONCLUSION

High migraine-related burden levels were reported, despite use of acute medication. Although triptans are recommended for moderate to severe migraine attacks in Spanish and German guidelines, less than half of participants were using triptans; treatment satisfaction in those using triptans was generally poor. New tailored treatment options may help address unmet needs in current acute treatment.

The state of art on the use of patient reported outcomes in migraine

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review aims to explore the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in migraine. Traditionally assessed through specific features, recent adoption of PROMs allows for a more objective and quantifiable evaluation. PROMs, which are standardized questionnaires collecting health information directly from a patients' perspective, cover various aspects, including migraine specific aspects. The review focuses on delineating the applications and interpretation of commonly used PROMs in migraine research, with an emphasis on their integration in clinical care.

RECENT FINDINGS

Generic and migraine-specific PROMs play a crucial role in clinical research, particularly in assessing health-related quality of life, disability, impact, and associated comorbidities. Some of these measures are strongly recommended to be used by the International Guidelines and are, in fact, mandated by the FDA for product labeling. Recently, there has been an expansion in the use of PROMs to assess migraine in diverse populations, in particular pediatric patients. However, the application of these measures in clinical care shows considerable heterogeneity, and some have not been validated specifically for migraine. The existing multitude of PROMs, coupled with ongoing development of new ones to better capture patient concerns, creates complexity in their research and clinical application. To address these challenges, it becomes imperative to streamline their use, focusing on those that are more validated and better aligned with the patients' perspective including different populations' needs.

SUMMARY

The utilization of PROMs in evaluating migraine enables a more holistic assessment, helps quantify the impact of the disease facilitating change measurement, improves communication between healthcare providers and patients and, guides treatment decisions for improved outcomes. However, the increasing number of PROMs questionnaires, underscores the importance of validating these tools for migraine and, the dynamic nature of the disease makes it relevant to decide with whom, why and when these should be used.

Characterizing gaps in the preventive pharmacologic treatment of migraine: Multi-country results from the CaMEO-I study

OBJECTIVE

To analyze data from the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes-International (CaMEO-I) Study in order to characterize preventive medication use and identify preventive usage gaps among people with migraine across multiple countries.

BACKGROUND

Guidelines for the preventive treatment of migraine are available from scientific organizations in various countries. Although these guidelines differ among countries, eligibility for preventive treatment is generally based on monthly headache day (MHD) frequency and associated disability. The overwhelming majority of people with migraine who are eligible for preventive treatment do not receive it.

METHODS

The CaMEO-I Study was a cross-sectional, observational, web-based panel survey study performed in six countries: Canada, France, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States. People were invited to complete an online survey in their national language(s) to identify those with migraine according to modified International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition, criteria. People classified with migraine answered questions about current and ever use of both acute and preventive treatments for migraine. Available preventive medications for migraine differed by country. MHD frequency and associated disability data were collected. The American Headache Society (AHS) 2021 Consensus Statement algorithm was used to determine candidacy for preventive treatment (i.e., ≥3 monthly MHDs with severe disability, ≥4 MHDs with some disability, or ≥6 MHDs regardless of level of disability).

RESULTS

Among 90,613 valid completers of the screening survey, 14,492 met criteria for migraine and completed the full survey, with approximately 2400 respondents from each country. Based on the AHS consensus statement preventive treatment candidacy algorithm, averaging across countries, 36.2% (5246/14,492) of respondents with migraine qualified for preventive treatment. Most respondents (84.5% [4431/5246]) who met criteria for preventive treatment according to the AHS consensus statement were not using a preventive medication at the time of the survey. Moreover, 19.3% (2799/14,492) of respondents had ever used preventive medication (ever users); 58.1% (1625/2799) of respondents who reported ever using a preventive medication for migraine were still taking it. Of the respondents who were currently using a preventive medication, 50.2% (815/1625) still met the criteria for needing preventive treatment based on the AHS consensus statement.

CONCLUSIONS

Most people with migraine who qualify for preventive treatment are not currently taking it. Additionally, many people currently taking preventive pharmacologic treatment still meet the algorithm criteria for needing preventive treatment, suggesting inadequate benefit from their current regimen.

Prevalence of primary headaches in multiple sclerosis patients

BACKGROUND

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is the most common immune-mediated inflammatory disease of the central nervous system. It is characterized by symptoms such as visual disturbances, paresis with spasticity, paresthesia, numbness, and fatigue. However, several studies have shown a high prevalence of headaches in individuals with MS. Migraine and tension-type headaches are the most frequent types of headaches experienced by those with MS. Additionally, the role of MS disease-modifying agents must be considered. These agents have different modes of action and side effect profiles, and their use may sometimes trigger headaches in patients with MS.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to explore the prevalence and clinical characteristics of primary headaches in MS patients. The relationship between headache and clinical features of MS (Course of MS, duration, EDSS, brain imaging and DMD) are also investigated.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Two hundred and eighty-one MS patients diagnosed according to according to the 2017 revisions to the McDonald Criteria were included in the study. Data was collected from the MS unit medical records and from the interview with the patients. Patients with reported headaches are asked to recall their headache characteristics and patterns using an interviewer administered Arabic language-structured validated questionnaire.

RESULTS

The median age of patients was 33 years old, with a range of 22-55. Tension-type headache (TTH) was more common in males, patients with more severe disability (EDSS ≥ 3), and those with SPMS and PPMS phenotypes. Additionally, patients on rituximab or cyclophosphamide therapy were more likely to have TTH. On the other hand, females, patients with milder disability (EDSS < 3), and those with RRMS phenotype were more likely to have migraine. This was also true for patients with MRI lesions involving the periaqueductal gray, and those receiving INF or fingolimod (P < 0.05). Periaqueductal gray matter lesions were found in the MRI of 48 patients (40 %) who experienced headaches on more than 10 days per month. Sensorimotor lesions in the brain were found in 55 patients (53.4 %) with severe headaches (p-value < 0.001). Interferons were associated with an increased risk of worsening preexisting headaches and the appearance of de novo headaches related to its intake (odds ratio: 2.84, 3.72; relative risk: 1.63, 2.04; p-value = 0.03, < 0.001, respectively). On the other hand, rituximab was associated with a decreased risk of worsening preexisting headaches and the appearance of de novo headaches related to its intake (odds ratio: 0.04, 0.09; relative risk: 0.11, 0.18; p-value = < 0.001, < 0.001, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Primary headaches are a common occurrence in patients with MS. Migraines and tension-type headaches (TTH) are among the most prevalent types. It has been observed that interferon can exacerbate preexisting headaches and even cause new ones. Additionally, the location of MS plaques may play a role in the frequency and severity of headaches.

Medication "underuse" headache

BACKGROUND

Many risk factors have been associated with migraine progression, including insufficient and ineffective utilization of migraine medications; however, they have been inadequately explored. This has resulted in suboptimal usage of medications without effective altering of prescribing recommendations for patients, posing a risk for migraine chronification.

METHODS

Our aim is to conduct a comprehensive review of the available evidence regarding the underuse of migraine medications, both acute and preventive. The term "underuse" includes, but is not limited to: (1) ineffective use of appropriate and inappropriate medication; (2) underutilization; (3) inappropriate timing of usage; and (4) patient dissatisfaction with medication.

RESULTS

The underuse of both acute and preventive medications has been shown to contribute to the progression of migraine. In terms of acute medication, chronification occurs as a result of insufficient drug use, including failure of the prescriber to select the appropriate type based on pain intensity and disability, patients taking medication too late (more than 60 minutes after the onset or after central sensitization has occurred as evidenced by allodynia), and discontinuation because of lack of effect or intolerable side effects. The underlying cause of inadequate effectiveness of acute medication lies in its inability to halt the propagation of peripheral activation to central sensitization in a timely manner. For oral and injectable preventive migraine medications, insufficient efficacy and intolerable side effects have led to poor adherence and discontinuation with subsequent progression of migraine. The underlying pathophysiology here is rooted in the repetitive stimulation of afferent sensory pain fibers, followed by ascending brainstem pain pathways plus dysfunction of the endogenous descending brainstem pain inhibitory pathway. Although anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) medications partially address pain caused by the above factors, including decreased efficacy and tolerability from conventional therapy, some patients do not respond well to this treatment. Research suggests that initiating preventive anti-CGRP treatment at an early stage (during low frequency episodic migraine attacks) is more beneficial than commencing it during high frequency episodic attacks or when chronic migraine has begun.

CONCLUSIONS

The term "medication underuse" is underrecognized, but it holds significant importance. Optimal usage of acute care and preventive migraine medications could potentially prevent migraine chronification and improve the treatment of migraine attacks.

Readability analysis and concept mapping of PROMs used for headache disorders

OBJECTIVE

To assess the readability and the comprehensiveness of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) utilized in primary headache disorders literature.

BACKGROUND

As the health-care landscape has evolved toward a patient-centric model, numerous PROMs have been developed to capture treatment outcomes in patients with headache disorders. For these PROMs to advance our understanding of headache disorders and their treatment impact, they must be easy to understand (i.e., reading grade level 6 or less) and comprehensively capture what matters to patients with headache. The aim of this study was to (a) assess the readability of PROMs utilized in headache disorders literature, and (b) assess the comprehensiveness of PROMs by mapping their content to a health-related quality of life framework.

METHODS

In this scoping review, recently published systematic reviews were used to identify PROMs used in primary headache disorders literature. Readability analysis was performed at the level of individual items and full PROM using established readability metrics. The content of the PROMs was mapped against a health-related quality-of-life framework by two independent reviewers.

RESULTS

In total, 22 PROMs (15 headache disorders related, 7 generic) were included. The median reading grade level varied between 7.1 (interquartile range [IQR] 6.3-7.8) and 12.7 (IQR 11.8-13.2). None of the PROMs were below the recommended reading grade level for patient-facing material (grade 6). Three PROMs, the Migraine-Treatment Assessment Questionnaire, the Eurolight, and the European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions 3 Level Version, were between reading grade levels 7 and 8; the remaining 19 PROMs were above reading grade level 8. In total, the PROMs included 425 items. Most items (n = 134, 32%) assessed physical function (e.g., work, activities of daily living). The remaining items assessed physical symptoms (n = 127, 30%; e.g., pain, nausea), treatment effects on symptoms (n = 65, 15%; e.g., accompanying symptoms relief, headache relief), treatment impact (n = 56, 13%; e.g., function, side effects), psychological well-being (n = 41, 10%; e.g., anger, frustration), social well-being (n = 29, 7%; e.g., missing out on social activities, relationships), psychological impact (n = 14, 3%; e.g., feeling [not] in control, feeling like a burden), and sexual well-being (n = 3, 1%; e.g., sexual activity, sexual interest). Some of the items pertained to treatment (n = 27, 6%), of which most were about treatment type and use (n = 12, 3%; e.g., medication, botulinum toxin), treatment access (n = 10, 2%; e.g., health-care utilization, cost of medication), and treatment experience (n = 9, 2%; e.g., treatment satisfaction, confidence in treatment).

CONCLUSION

The PROMs used in studies of headache disorders may be challenging for some patients to understand, leading to inaccurate or missing data. Furthermore, no available PROM comprehensively measures the health-related quality-of-life impact of headache disorders or their treatment, resulting in a limited understanding of patient-reported outcomes. The development of an easy-to-understand, comprehensive, and validated headache disorders-specific PROM is warranted.

Harris Poll Migraine Report Card: population-based examination of high-frequency headache/migraine and acute medication overuse

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a disabling neurologic disease that can fluctuate over time in severity, frequency, and acute medication use. Harris Poll Migraine Report Card was a US population-based survey to ascertain quantifiable distinctions amongst individuals with current versus previous high-frequency headache/migraine and acute medication overuse (HFM+AMO). The objective of this report is to compare self-reported experiences in the migraine journey of adults with HFM+AMO to those who previously experienced HFM+AMO but currently have a sustained reduction in headache/migraine frequency and acute medication use.

METHODS

An online survey was available to a general population panel of adults (≥18 years) with migraine per the ID Migraine™ screener. Respondents were classified into "current HFM+AMO" (within the last few months had ≥8 headache days/month and ≥10 days/month of acute medication use; n=440) or "previous HFM+AMO" (previously had HFM+AMO, but within the last few months had ≤7 headache days/month and ≤9 days/month of acute medication use; n=110). Survey questions pertained to demographics, diagnosis, living with migraine, healthcare provider (HCP) communication, and treatment.

RESULTS

Participants in the current HFM+AMO group had 15.2 monthly headache days and 17.4 days of monthly acute medication use in last few months compared to 4.2 and 4.1 days for the previous HFM+AMO group, respectively. Overall, current preventive pharmacologic treatment use was low (15-16%; P>0.1 for current vs previous) in both groups. Previous HFM+AMO respondents reported better current acute treatment optimization. More respondents with current (80%) than previous HFM+AMO (66%) expressed concern with their current health (P<0.05). More than one-third of both groups wished their HCP better understood their mental/emotional health (current 37%, previous 35%; P>0.1 for current vs previous) and 47% (current) to 54% (previous) of respondents worried about asking their HCP too many questions (P>0.1 for current vs previous).

CONCLUSION

Apart from optimization of acute medication, medical interventions did not significantly differentiate between the current and previous HFM+AMO groups. Use of preventive pharmacological medication was low in both groups. Adults with current HFM+AMO more often had health concerns, yet both groups expressed concerns of disease burden. Optimization of acute and preventive medication and addressing mental/emotional health concerns of patients are areas where migraine care may impact outcomes regardless of their disease burden.

Real-World Use of Ubrogepant as Acute Treatment for Migraine with an Anti-Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide Monoclonal Antibody: Results from COURAGE

INTRODUCTION

Although acute and preventive treatments for migraine are commonly given in combination, data on the real-world effectiveness of ubrogepant as an acute treatment when used with an anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibody (with or without onabotulinumtoxinA) are limited. This analysis sought to evaluate the real-world effectiveness, treatment satisfaction, and optimization of ubrogepant for the acute treatment of migraine when used in combination with an anti-CGRP monoclonal antibody, with or without concomitant onabotulinumtoxinA.

METHODS

This prospective, multiple-attack, open-label, observational study (COURAGE) assessed meaningful pain relief (MPR), return to normal function (RNF), treatment satisfaction, and acute treatment optimization of ubrogepant (50 or 100 mg) when combined with an anti-CGRP monoclonal antibody, onabotulinumtoxinA, or both in adult users of Migraine Buddy, a migraine tracking application.

RESULTS

In the ubrogepant and anti-CGRP monoclonal antibody arm (n = 245), following the first ubrogepant-treated attack, 61.6% (151/245) and 80.4% (197/245) of ubrogepant-treated participants achieved MPR at 2 and 4 h post-dose, respectively, and 34.7% (85/245) and 55.5% (136/245) achieved RNF at 2 and 4 h post-dose, respectively. Across up to 10 ubrogepant-treated attacks (N = 1153), MPR was achieved in 51.3% (592/1153) and 73.5% (847/1153) at 2 and 4 h post-dose, respectively. RNF was achieved by 32.2% (371/1153) and 53.2% (613/1153) at 2 and 4 h post-dose. After 30 days, 72.7% (168/231) of participants reported satisfaction (using a 7-point scale) with ubrogepant when used in combination with an anti-CGRP monoclonal antibody, and 79.7% (184/231) of participants achieved acute treatment optimization (defined as moderate-maximum treatment efficacy using the Migraine Treatment Optimization Questionnaire-4).

CONCLUSION

Real-world ubrogepant use with an anti-CGRP monoclonal antibody was associated with MPR, RNF, satisfaction, and acute treatment optimization.

Nine-Month Continuous Fremanezumab Prophylaxis on the Response to Triptans and Also on the Incidence of Triggers, Hypersensitivity and Prodromal Symptoms of Patients with High-Frequency Episodic Migraine

Objective: To investigate whether the incidence of triggers, prodromal symptoms, hypersensitivity symptoms accompanying headache and responses to triptans were modified during a continuous 9-month fremanezumab therapy for migraine prophylaxis. Patients and methods: We studied 63 patients with high-frequency episodic migraine (HFEM). Enrolled patients received fremanezumab for nine consecutive months before defining the response rates and being stratified into treatment responders (≥50-74% reduction in monthly headache days (MHDs)), super responders (≥75%), partial non-responders (<50%) and super non-responders (<30%). Through headache diaries, patients provided data in order to document the impact of fremanezumab on the incidence of triggers, associated symptoms followed by headache and response to triptans (the use of the migraine treatment optimization questionnaire-4 (mTOQ-4)) during the 9-month treatment period. Results: Fremanezumab had early (after 3 monthly cycles) beneficial effects on the response to triptans in the majority of responders with relevant increases in mTOQ-4 scoring, but also in half of partial non-responders. A significant reduction in median days with migraine-associated symptoms was seen in responders after 6 months of therapy with fremanezumab, mostly for osmophobia, photophobia, phonophobia and nausea/vomiting, but partial non-responders also benefited. Likewise, the incidence of self-reported prodromal symptoms was significantly reduced in responders and was modestly diminished in partial non-responders. Triggers remained unaffected in both responders and non-responders. Conclusions: Fremanezumab given for at least 6-9 months may exert neuromodulatory effects in the migraine brain. These effects could result both in the inhibition of migraine chronification, but also in the diminishing of the magnitude of migraine-associated symptoms, mostly in responders and in partial non-responders.

Risk factors for migraine disease progression: a narrative review for a patient-centered approach

BACKGROUND

In individuals with migraine, attacks may increase in frequency, severity, or both. Preventing migraine progression has emerged as a treatment goal in headache subspecialty practice, but there may be less awareness in general neurology or primary care settings where most people with migraine who seek treatment consult. Herein, we review the definition of and risk factors for migraine progression and consider strategies that could reduce its risk.

METHODS

A group of headache expert healthcare professionals, clinicians, and researchers reviewed published evidence documenting factors associated with increased or decreased rates of migraine progression and established expert opinions for disease management recommendations. Strength of evidence was rated as good, moderate, or based solely on expert opinion, using modified criteria for causation developed by AB Hill.

RESULTS

Migraine progression is commonly operationally defined as the transition from ≤ 15 to ≥ 15 monthly headache days among people with migraine; however, this does not necessarily constitute a fundamental change in migraine biology and other definitions should be considered. Established and theoretical key risk factors for migraine progression were categorized into five domains: migraine disease characteristics, treatment-related factors, comorbidities, lifestyle/exogenous factors, and demographic factors. Within these domains, good evidence supports the following risk factors: poorly optimized acute headache treatment, cutaneous allodynia, acute medication overuse, selected psychiatric symptoms, extra-cephalic chronic pain conditions, metabolism-related comorbidities, sleep disturbances, respiratory conditions, former/current high caffeine intake, physical inactivity, financial constraints, tobacco use, and personal triggers as risk factors. Protective actions that may mitigate migraine progression are sparsely investigated in published literature; our discussion of these factors is primarily based on expert opinion.

CONCLUSIONS

Recognizing risk factors for migraine progression will allow healthcare providers to suggest protective actions against migraine progression (Supplementary Fig. 1). Intervention studies are needed to weight the risk factors and test the clinical benefit of hypothesized mitigation strategies that emerge from epidemiological evidence.

Pre- and post-headache phases of migraine: multi-country results from the CaMEO - International Study

BACKGROUND

Individuals with migraine frequently experience pre- and post-headache symptoms. This analysis aimed to characterize the relative frequency and burden of pre- and post-headache symptoms in people with migraine using data collected through the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes - International Study.

METHODS

This cross-sectional, observational, web-based survey was conducted in 2021-2022 in Canada, France, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Respondents who met modified International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition, criteria were offered the opportunity to participate. Information collected included migraine-related disability, depression/anxiety symptoms, cutaneous allodynia, activity limitations, and acute treatment optimization. Respondents indicated how often they had pre- or post-headache symptoms using a 5-point scale, ranging from 0 to 4, with a rating of 2 or higher classified as a pre- or post-headache symptom case. Modeling was used to examine relationships with monthly headache days (MHDs) and activity limitations during pre-headache and post-headache phases.

RESULTS

Among a total of 14,492 respondents, pre-headache symptoms were reported by 66.9%, while post-headache symptoms were reported by 60.2%. Both pre-headache and post-headache symptoms were reported by 49.5% of respondents, only pre-headache by 17.4%, only post-headache by 10.7%, and neither pre- nor post-headache symptoms by 22.4%. Compared with respondents who experienced only pre- or post-headache symptoms, respondents who experienced both pre- and post-headache symptoms had the highest rates of 4-7, 8-14, and ≥ 15 monthly headache days (23.1%, 14.1%, and 10.9%, respectively). Of respondents with both pre- and post-headache symptoms, 58.5% reported moderate-to-severe disability, 47.7% reported clinically significant symptoms of depression, 49.0% reported clinically significant symptoms of anxiety, and 63.8% reported cutaneous allodynia with headache (ASC-12). Moderate-to-severe activity limitations were reported during the pre-headache (29.5%) and post-headache phases (27.2%). For all outcomes modeled, after controlling for covariates, having pre-headache symptoms, post-headache symptoms, or both were associated with worse outcomes than having neither.

CONCLUSIONS

Pre- and post-headache phases of migraine are common, carry unrecognized burden, and may be a target for treatment.

Real-world effectiveness, satisfaction, and optimization of ubrogepant for the acute treatment of migraine in combination with onabotulinumtoxinA: results from the COURAGE Study

BACKGROUND

Individuals using onabotulinumtoxinA as a preventive migraine treatment often use acute treatments for breakthrough attacks. Data on real-world effectiveness of the small-molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist ubrogepant in combination with onabotulinumtoxinA are limited.

METHODS

COURAGE, a prospective, multiple attack, observational study, evaluated the real-world effectiveness of ubrogepant (50 or 100 mg) for acute treatment of migraine in people receiving onabotulinumtoxinA, an anti-CGRP monoclonal antibody (mAb), or both. This analysis focused only on onabotulinumtoxinA users. The Migraine Buddy app was used to identify eligible participants and track response to treated attacks. For each ubrogepant-treated attack, meaningful pain relief (MPR) and return to normal function (RNF) at 2 and 4 h post-dose over 30 days was assessed. MPR was defined as a level of relief that is meaningful to the participant, usually occurring before the pain is all gone. After 30 days, satisfaction was reported on a 7-point scale and overall acute treatment optimization was evaluated using the migraine Treatment Optimization Questionnaire-4 (mTOQ-4).

RESULTS

This analysis included 122 participants who received ubrogepant and onabotulinumtoxinA and reported on 599 ubrogepant-treated attacks. Following the first ubrogepant-treated attack, MPR was achieved in 53.3% of participants 2 h post-dose and in 76.2% of participants 4 h post-dose. RNF was achieved in 25.4% of participants 2 h post-dose and in 45.9% of participants 4 h post-dose. MPR and RNF results were similar across up to 10 ubrogepant-treated attacks. After 30 days, satisfaction with ubrogepant in combination with onabotulinumtoxinA was reported by 69.8% of participants and acute treatment optimization (defined as mTOQ-4 score ≥ 4) was achieved in 77.6%.

CONCLUSIONS

In this prospective real-world effectiveness study, ubrogepant treatment in onabotulinumtoxinA users with self-identified migraine was associated with high rates of MPR and RNF at 2 and 4 h as well as satisfaction and acute treatment optimization. Although the lack of a contemporaneous control group limits causal inference, these findings demonstrate the feasibility of using a novel, app-based design to evaluate the real-world effectiveness and satisfaction of treatments.

Brazilian headache registry: methods and preliminary data of the pilot study

BACKGROUND

Evaluation and treatment of primary and secondary headaches is a global public health challenge. Recognizing the epidemiological impact of headaches, a group of researchers linked to the Brazilian Headache Society proposed the Brazilian Headache Registry and drew up its initial protocol.

OBJECTIVE

Here we describe the methods and preliminary data obtained from the pilot study.

METHODS

This was a multicenter longitudinal observational study conducted between September 2020 and August 2021. Prospective data were collected in three specialist centers for headache care in states in southern and southeastern Brazil. Patients aged 18 years or older who sought care for headache in tertiary centers and who agreed to participate in the study, were considered eligible.

RESULTS

Sixty-six patients were included in the pilot study: 43 (65%) from Rio Grande do Sul state and 23 (35%) from Minas Gerais state. Overall, 90% were female, and the subjects' mean age was 38.2 ± 11.2 years. Primary headaches accounted for 85.3% of the diagnoses made. Among secondary headaches, medication overuse headache was the most frequent type (7.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

The pilot study showed the feasibility of the research protocol developed for tertiary centers. The Brazilian Headache Registry will form a source of longitudinal data with the aim of contributing to better characterization of the various phenotypes of patients with primary and secondary headaches, and to detailing the use of health resources and identifying predictors of better clinical outcomes.

The 5-HT1F receptor as the target of ditans in migraine - from bench to bedside

Migraine is a leading cause of disability in more than one billion people worldwide, yet it remains universally underappreciated, even by individuals with the condition. Among other shortcomings, current treatments (often repurposed agents) have limited efficacy and potential adverse effects, leading to low treatment adherence. After the introduction of agents that target the calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway, another new drug class, the ditans - a group of selective serotonin 5-HT_1F receptor agonists - has just reached the international market. Here, we review preclinical studies from the late 1990s and more recent clinical research that contributed to the development of the ditans and led to their approval for acute migraine treatment by the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency.

What do patients' efficacy and tolerability ratings of acute migraine medication tell us? Cross-sectional data from the DMKG Headache Registry

BACKGROUND

Most migraine patients need an effective acute medication. Real-world data can provide important information on the performance of acute migraine medication in clinical practice.

METHODS

We used data from the German Migraine and Headache Society Headache Registry, where patients rate efficacy and tolerability of and satisfaction with each of their acute headache medications.

RESULTS

A total of 1756 adult migraine patients (females: 85%, age: 39.5 ± 12.8 years, headache days per month: 13.5 ± 8.1) were included. Of these, 93% used acute medication, most frequently triptans (59.3%) and/or non-opioid analgesics (56.4%), and 58.5% rated efficacy as good or very good. This was more frequent for triptans (75.4%) than for non-opioid analgesics (43.6%, p < 0.001). Among non-opioid analgesics, naproxen was rated most effective (61.9% very good or good, p < 0.001 compared to ibuprofen, acetylsalicylic acid and paracetamol). Patient-rated efficacy significantly declined with higher headache frequencies (p < 0.001), and this effect remained significant after omitting patients overusing acute medication.

CONCLUSION

In the present population recruited at specialized headache centers, patients rated triptans as more effective than non-opioid analgesics, naproxen as more effective than ibuprofen, and acute medication efficacy decreased with increasing headache frequency.Trial registration: The German Migraine and Headache Society Headache Registry is registered with the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS 00021081).

Optimized Acute Treatment of Migraine Is Associated With Greater Productivity in People With Migraine: Results From the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) Study

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to ascertain whether level of optimization of acute treatment of migraine is related to work productivity across the spectrum of migraine.

METHODS

Data were from the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) Study, an internet-based longitudinal survey. Respondents with migraine who reported full-time employment and use of ≥1 acute prescription medication for migraine were included. We determined relationships among lost productive time (LPT; measured with the Migraine Disability Assessment Scale), acute treatment optimization (Migraine Treatment Optimization Questionnaire- ), and monthly headache days (MHDs).

RESULTS

There was a direct relationship between LPT and MHD category. Greater acute treatment optimization was associated with lower total LPT, less absenteeism, and less presenteeism within each MHD category.

CONCLUSIONS

Optimizing acute treatment for migraine may reduce LPT in people with migraine and reduce indirect costs.

Predictors of treatment-response to caffeine combination products, acetaminophen, acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin), and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in acute treatment of episodic migraine

OBJECTIVE

To identify predictors of acute treatment optimization for migraine with "over-the-counter" (OTC) or prescription nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) as well as other widely used OTCs including acetaminophen, caffeine combination products (CCP), and acetylsalicylic acid (ASA, aspirin) among people with episodic migraine and to develop models that predict treatment response to each class of OTCs.

BACKGROUND

Efficacy of acute OTC medications for migraine varies greatly. Identifying predictors of treatment response to particular classes of medication is a step toward evidence-based personalized therapy.

METHODS

For this prediction model development study, we used data from 2224 participants from the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention (AMPP) study who were aged ≥18 years, met criteria for migraine, had <15 monthly headache days, and reported being on monotherapy for acute migraine attacks with one of the following classes medications: CCP (N = 711), acetaminophen (N = 643), ASA (N = 110), and prescription or OTC NSAIDs (N = 760). The primary outcome measures of treatment optimization were adequate 2-h pain freedom (2hPF) and adequate 24-h pain relief (24hPR), which were defined by responses of half the time or more to the relevant items on the Migraine Treatment Optimization Questionnaire-6.

RESULTS

The mean (SD) age of the participants was 46.2 (13.1) years, 79.4% (1765/2224) were female, 43.7% (972/2224) reported adequate 2hPF, and 46.1% (1025/2224) reported adequate 24hPR. Those taking CCP had better 2hPF and 24PR outcomes. For those taking NSAIDs, better outcomes were associated with lower average pain intensity (2hPF: odds ratio [OR] 0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.80-0.99; 24PR: OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.77-0.96), cutaneous allodynia (2hPF: OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.89-0.96; 24PR: OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.87-0.95), depressive symptoms (2hPF: OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.92-0.98; 24PR: OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.91-0.99), and Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS) grade (2hPF: OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.64-0.90; 24PR: OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65-0.95). Adequate 2hPF for those taking CCP was associated with male gender (OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.21-2.77), lower average pain intensity (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.70-0.91), lower cutaneous allodynia (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.90-0.97), and lower Migraine Symptom Severity Scale Score (MSSS; OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.86-0.97). Adequate 24hPR for those taking CCP was associated with lower average pain intensity (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.75-0.96), lower cutaneous allodynia (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.89-0.96), and lower MIDAS grade (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.68-0.96). Participants who were married (OR 1.51, 95% CI 1.05-2.19), had lower average pain intensity (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.70-0.89), lower MSSS (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.88-0.99), less depression (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.93-0.99), and lower MIDAS grade (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59-0.87) had adequate 2hPF after taking acetaminophen. Participants who were married (OR 1.50, 95% CI 1.02-2.21), had lower pain intensity (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.69-0.88), less depression (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.91-0.98) and lower MIDAS grade (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.42-0.67) had higher 24hPR following use of acetaminophen. A lower MSSS was the only factor associated with higher 2hPF and 24PR after using ASA (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.67-0.92 and OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.67-0.93). Predictive models had modest performance in identifying responders to each class of OTC.

CONCLUSION

A large subgroup of people with migraine had an inadequate response to their usual acute OTC migraine treatment 2- and 24-h after dosing. These findings suggest a need to improve OTC treatment for some and to offer prescription acute medications for others. Predictive models identified several factors associated with better treatment-response in each OTC class. Selecting OTC treatment based on factors predictive of treatment optimization might improve patient outcomes.

A qualitative evidence synthesis of patient perspectives on migraine treatment features and outcomes

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to identify migraine treatment features preferred by patients and treatment outcomes most valued by patients.

BACKGROUND

The values and preferences of people living with migraine are critical for both the choice of acute therapy and management approach of migraine.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative evidence synthesis. Two reviewers independently selected studies, appraised methodological quality, and undertook a framework synthesis. We developed summary of findings tables following the approach of Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research to assess confidence in the findings.

RESULTS

Of 1691 candidate references, we included 19 studies (21 publications) involving 459 patients. The studies mostly recruited White women from North America (11 studies) and Europe (8 studies). We identified eight themes encompassing features preferred by patients in a migraine treatment process. Themes described a treatment process that included shared decision-making, a tailored approach, trust in health-care professionals, sharing of knowledge and diversity of treatment options, a holistic approach that does not just address the headache, ease of communication especially for complex treatments, a non-undermining approach, and reciprocity with mutual respect between patient and provider. In terms of the treatment itself, seven themes emerged including patients' preferences for nonpharmacologic treatment, high effectiveness, rapidity of action, long-lasting effect, lower cost and more accessibility, self-management/self-delivery option that increases autonomy, and a mixed preference for abortive versus prophylactic treatments. The treatment outcomes that have high value to patients included maintaining or improving function; avoiding side effects, potential for addiction to medications, and pain reoccurrence; and avoiding non-headache symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, and sensitivity to light or sounds.

CONCLUSION

Patient values and preferences were individually constructed, varied widely, and could be at odds with conventional medical perspectives and evidence of treatment effects. Considering the availability of numerous treatments for acute migraine, it is necessary that decision-making incorporates patient values and preferences identified in qualitative research. The findings of this qualitative synthesis can be used to facilitate an individually tailored approach, strengthen the patient-health-care system relationship, and guide choices and decisions in the context of a clinical encounter or a clinical practice guideline.

Management of chronic migraine

Chronic migraine is a neurologic disorder associated with considerable disability, lost productivity, and a profound economic burden worldwide. The past five years have seen a dramatic expansion in new treatments for this often challenging condition, among them calcitonin gene related peptide antagonists and neuromodulatory devices. This review outlines the epidemiology of and diagnostic criteria and risk factors for chronic migraine. It discusses evidence based drug and non-drug treatments, their advantages and disadvantages, and the principles of patient centered care for adults with chronic migraine, with attention to differential diagnosis and comorbidities, clinical reasoning, initiation and monitoring, cost, and availability. It discusses the international guidelines on drug treatment for chronic migraine and evaluates non-drug treatments including behavioral and complementary therapies and lifestyle modifications. Finally, it discusses the management of chronic migraine in special populations, including pediatrics, pregnancy, and older people, and considers future questions and emerging research in the field.

Guidelines of the International Headache Society for Clinic-Based Headache Registries, 1st edition

Clinic-based headache registries collect data for a wide variety of purposes including delineating disease characteristics, longitudinal natural disease courses, headache management approaches, quality of care, treatment safety and effectiveness, factors that predict treatment response, health care resource utilization, clinician adherence to guidelines, and cost-effectiveness. Registry data are valuable for numerous stakeholders, including individuals with headache disorders and their caregivers, healthcare providers, scientists, healthcare systems, regulatory authorities, pharmaceutical companies, employers, and policymakers. This International Headache Society document may serve as guidance for developing clinic-based headache registries. Use of registry data requires a formal research protocol that includes: 1) research aims; 2) methods for data collection, harmonization, analysis, privacy, and protection; 3) methods for human subject protection; and 4) publication and dissemination plans. Depending upon their objectives, headache registries should include validated headache-specific questionnaires, patient reported outcome measures, data elements that are used consistently across studies (i.e., "common data elements"), and medical record data. Amongst other data types, registries may be linked to healthcare and pharmacy claims data, biospecimens, and neuroimaging data. Headache diagnoses should be made according to the International Classification of Headache Disorders diagnostic criteria. The data from well-designed headache registries can provide wide-ranging and novel insights into the characteristics, burden, and treatment of headache disorders and ultimately lead to improvements in the management of patients with headache.

Optimization of acute medication use following eptinezumab initiation during a migraine attack: post hoc analysis of the RELIEF study

BACKGROUND

The benefits of preventive treatment on the effectiveness of migraine management have rarely been examined. This post hoc analysis investigated the impact of eptinezumab on the optimization of acute medication effectiveness using the 4-item Migraine Treatment Optimization Questionnaire (mTOQ-4) to measure acute medication optimization over 4 weeks post-infusion.

METHODS

RELIEF was a 12-week, phase 3, multicenter, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial conducted in patients aged 18-75 years with a ≥ 1-year history of migraine and 4-15 migraine days per month in the 3 months prior to screening. Patients were randomized 1:1 to a 30-min infusion of eptinezumab 100 mg or placebo within 1-6 h of a qualifying migraine attack. The mTOQ-6 and 6-item Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) were administered at screening visit and week 4. From the mTOQ-6, we calculated the mTOQ-4 using the following items: "2-h pain free," "24-h relief," "able to plan," and "feeling in control" to measure acute medication optimization.

RESULTS

A total of 238 patients received eptinezumab 100 mg and 226 provided week 4 data; 242 received placebo and 232 provided week 4 data. In the eptinezumab arm, the proportion of patients with moderate/maximal optimization increased from 31.4% at baseline to 58.0% (26.6 percentage point increase) at week 4. The corresponding proportions in the placebo group were 40.5% to 50.4% (9.9 percentage point increase). Eptinezumab treatment was associated with numerically larger improvements in HIT-6 at week 4. Relative improvements with eptinezumab vs. placebo from baseline to week 4 in HIT-6 were greater in those with poor treatment optimization at baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

In comparison with placebo, treatment with eptinezumab was associated with improvements in acute medication optimization as measured by mTOQ and reductions in headache impact, as measured by HIT-6. These benefits were greater in those with poor acute treatment optimization prior to preventive treatment with eptinezumab.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04152083 .

Predictive models for determining treatment response to nonprescription acute medications in migraine: Results from the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention Study

OBJECTIVE

To identify predictors of acute treatment response for nonprescription (over-the-counter [OTC]) medications among people with migraine and develop improved models for predicting treatment response.

BACKGROUND

Pain freedom and sustained pain relief are important priorities in the acute treatment of migraine. OTC medications are widely used for migraine; however, it is not clear which treatment works best for each patient without going through the trial and error process.

METHODS

A prediction model development study was completed using the 2006 American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention Study survey, from participants who were aged ≥18, met criteria and headache day frequency for episodic migraine, did not take prescription medication for migraine, and used ≥1 of the following acute migraine medication classes: acetaminophen, aspirin, NSAIDs, or caffeine containing combination products (CCP). Two items from the Migraine Treatment Optimization Questionnaire were used to evaluate treatment response, adequate 2-h pain freedom (2hPF) and 24-h pain relief (24hPR), which were defined by a response to treatment ≥half the time at 2 h and 24 h post treatment, respectively. We identified predictors of adequate treatment response and developed models to predict probability of treatment response to each medication class.

RESULTS

The sample included 3852 participants (3038 [79.0%] females) with an average age of 45.0 years (SD = 12.8). Only 1602/3852 (41.6%) and 1718/3852 (44.6%) of the participants reported adequate 2hPF and 24hPR, respectively. Adequate treatment-response was significantly predicted by lower average headache pain intensity, less cutaneous allodynia, and lower depressive symptom scores. Lower migraine symptom severity was predictive of adequate 2hPF and fewer monthly headache days was predictive of adequate 24hPR. Among participants reporting OTC monotherapy (n = 2168, 56.3%) individuals taking CCP were more likely to have adequate 2hPF (OR = 1.55, 95% CI 1.23-1.95) and 24hPR (OR = 1.79, 95% CI 1.18-1.88) in comparison with those taking acetaminophen. Predictive models were modestly predictive of responders to OTC medications (c-statistics = 0.65; 95% CI 0.62-0.68).

CONCLUSION

These results show that response to acute migraine treatments is not optimized in the majority of people with migraine treating with OTC medications. Predictive models can improve our ability to choose the best therapeutic option for individuals with episodic migraine and increase the proportion of patients with optimized response to treatments.

Eptinezumab treatment initiated during a migraine attack is associated with meaningful improvement in patient-reported outcome measures: secondary results from the randomized controlled RELIEF study

Background

Demonstrating therapeutic value from the patient perspective is important in patient-centered migraine management. The objective of this study was to investigate the impact of eptinezumab, a preventive migraine treatment, on patient-reported headache impact, acute medication optimization, and perception of disease change when initiated during a migraine attack.

Methods

RELIEF was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted between 2019 and 2020 in adults with ≥1-year history of migraine and 4–15 migraine days per month in the 3 months prior to screening. Patients were randomized (1:1) to a 30-min infusion of eptinezumab 100 mg or placebo within 1–6 h of a qualifying migraine attack onset. The 6-item Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) and 6-item Migraine Treatment Optimization Questionnaire (mTOQ-6) were administered at baseline and week 4, and the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) at week 4. A post hoc analysis of these measures was conducted in patients who reported headache pain freedom at 2 h after infusion start.

Results

Of 480 patients enrolled and treated, 476 completed the study and are included in this analysis. Mean baseline HIT-6 total scores indicated severe headache impact (eptinezumab, 65.1; placebo, 64.8). At week 4, the eptinezumab-treated group demonstrated clinically meaningful improvement in HIT-6 total score compared with placebo (mean change from baseline: eptinezumab, − 8.7; placebo, − 4.5; mean [95% CI] difference from placebo: − 4.2 [− 5.75, − 2.63], P < .0001), with greater reductions in each item score vs placebo (P < .001 all comparisons). Change in HIT-6 total score in the subgroup with 2-h headache pain freedom was − 13.8 for the eptinezumab group compared with − 4.9 for the placebo group. mTOQ-6 total score mean change from baseline favored eptinezumab (change, 2.1) compared with placebo (1.2; mean [95% CI] difference: 0.9 [0.3, 1.5], P < .01). More eptinezumab-treated patients rated PGIC as much or very much improved than placebo patients (59.3% vs 25.9%).

Conclusions

When administered during a migraine attack, eptinezumab significantly improved patient-reported outcomes after 4 weeks compared with placebo, with particularly pronounced effects in patients reporting headache pain freedom at 2 h after infusion start.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04152083. November 5, 2019.

Diagnosis and management of migraine in ten steps

Migraine is a disabling primary headache disorder that directly affects more than one billion people worldwide. Despite its widespread prevalence, migraine remains under-diagnosed and under-treated. To support clinical decision-making, we convened a European panel of experts to develop a ten-step approach to the diagnosis and management of migraine. Each step was established by expert consensus and supported by a review of current literature, and the Consensus Statement is endorsed by the European Headache Federation and the European Academy of Neurology. In this Consensus Statement, we introduce typical clinical features, diagnostic criteria and differential diagnoses of migraine. We then emphasize the value of patient centricity and patient education to ensure treatment adherence and satisfaction with care provision. Further, we outline best practices for acute and preventive treatment of migraine in various patient populations, including adults, children and adolescents, pregnant and breastfeeding women, and older people. In addition, we provide recommendations for evaluating treatment response and managing treatment failure. Lastly, we discuss the management of complications and comorbidities as well as the importance of planning long-term follow-up.

Revised guidelines of the French Headache Society for the diagnosis and management of migraine in adults. Part 1: Diagnosis and assessment

The French Headache Society proposes updated French guidelines for the management of migraine. The first part of these recommendations is focused on the diagnosis and assessment of migraine. First, migraine needs to be precisely diagnosed according to the currently validated criteria of the International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3d version (ICHD-3). Migraine-related disability has to be assessed and we suggest to use the 6 questions of the headache impact test (HIT-6). Then, it is important to check for risk factors and comorbidities increasing the risk to develop chronic migraine, especially frequency of headaches, acute medication overuse and presence of depression. We suggest to use a migraine calendar and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale (HAD). It is also necessary to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of current migraine treatments and we suggest to systematically use the self-administered Migraine Treatment Optimization Questionnaire (M-TOQ) for acute migraine treatment. Finally, a treatment strategy and a follow-up plan have to be proposed. Guidelines for pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments are presented in the second and third part of the recommendations.

The American Headache Society Consensus Statement: Update on integrating new migraine treatments into clinical practice

OBJECTIVE

To incorporate recent research findings, expert consensus, and patient perspectives into updated guidance on the use of new acute and preventive treatments for migraine in adults.

BACKGROUND

The American Headache Society previously published a Consensus Statement on the use of newly introduced treatments for adults with migraine. This update, which is based on the expanded evidence base and emerging expert consensus concerning postapproval usage, provides practical recommendations in the absence of a formal guideline.

METHODS

This update involved four steps: (1) review of data about the efficacy, safety, and clinical use of migraine treatments introduced since the previous Statement was published; (2) incorporation of these data into a proposed update; (3) review and commentary by the Board of Directors of the American Headache Society and patients and advocates associated with the American Migraine Foundation; (4) consideration of these collective insights and integration into an updated Consensus Statement.

RESULTS

Since the last Consensus Statement, no evidence has emerged to alter the established principles of either acute or preventive treatment. Newly introduced acute treatments include two small-molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonists (ubrogepant, rimegepant); a serotonin (5-HT1F ) agonist (lasmiditan); a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (celecoxib oral solution); and a neuromodulatory device (remote electrical neuromodulation). New preventive treatments include an intravenous anti-CGRP ligand monoclonal antibody (eptinezumab). Several modalities, including neuromodulation (electrical trigeminal nerve stimulation, noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation, single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation) and biobehavioral therapy (cognitive behavioral therapy, biofeedback, relaxation therapies, mindfulness-based therapies, acceptance and commitment therapy) may be appropriate for either acute and/or preventive treatment; a neuromodulation device may be appropriate for acute migraine treatment only (remote electrical neuromodulation).

CONCLUSIONS

The integration of new treatments into clinical practice should be informed by the potential for benefit relative to established therapies, as well as by the characteristics and preferences of individual patients.

Migraine: integrated approaches to clinical management and emerging treatments

Migraine is a highly disabling neurological disorder that directly affects more than 1 billion individuals worldwide. Available treatment options differ between countries and include acute, preventive, and non-pharmacological therapies. Because of major progress in the understanding of migraine pathogenesis, novel mechanism-based medications have emerged and expanded the armamentarium of treatments. We provide a comprehensive overview of the current standard of care that will enable informed clinical management. First, we discuss the efficacy, tolerability, and safety profile of various pharmacological therapies for acute and preventive treatment of migraine. Second, we review the current knowledge on non-pharmacological therapies, such as neuromodulation and biobehavioural approaches, which can be used for a multidisciplinary approach to clinical management. Third, we emphasise that any effective treatment strategy starts with building a therapeutic plan tailored to individual clinical characteristics, preferences, and needs. Finally, we explore the outlook of emerging mechanism-based treatments that could address unmet challenges in clinical management of migraine.

Severe migraine and its control: A proposal for definitions and consequences for care

Currently many patients with severe migraine do not receive appropriate treatment and are never referred to specialist headache centres. On the other hand, specialist headache centres are frequently attended by patients whose migraines could be managed adequately in the community. One reason for this may be the absence of standardised definitions of migraine severity and control and of a treatment algorithm for orientating difficult-to-treat patients to specialist headache centres. Based on a review of the relevant literature and consensus meetings, proposals have been made for these items. We propose that migraine should be considered severe if headache frequency is at least eight migraine days per month or, if headaches are less frequent, the HIT-6 score is ≥60 or ≥50% of headaches require complete interruption of activity. The proposed definition of migraine control is defined on the basis of appropriate response to acute headache therapy and to preventative therapy. A treatment algorithm is proposed to assess migraine control regularly and to adapt therapy accordingly. These proposals may contribute to developing and testing strategies for management of severe disease with appropriate and effective preventive treatment strategies. With the anticipated introduction of new possibilities for migraine prevention in the near future, the time is ripe for a holistic approach to migraine management.

Reliability and validity of the 6-item Headache Impact Test in chronic migraine from the PROMISE-2 study

Purpose

We examined the reliability and validity of the 6-item Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) specifically on patients with chronic migraine (CM) from the PROMISE-2 clinical trial.

Methods

The conceptual framework of HIT-6 was evaluated using baseline data from the PROMISE-2 study (NCT02974153; N = 1072). A unidimensional graded response model within the item response theory (IRT) framework was used to evaluate model fit and item characteristics. Using baseline and week 12 data, convergent and discriminant validity of the HIT-6 was evaluated by correlation coefficients. Sensitivity to change was assessed by evaluating correlations between HIT-6 scores and change scores for other established reference measures. All examined correlations were specified a priori with respect to direction and magnitude. Known-groups analyses were anchored using Patient Global Impression of Change and monthly headache days at week 12.

Results

A unidimensional model fit the data well, supporting that the 6 items measure a single construct. All item slopes and thresholds were within acceptable ranges. In both the validity and sensitivity to change analyses, all observed correlations conformed to directional expectations, and most conformed to magnitude expectations. Known-groups analyses demonstrated that the HIT-6 total score can distinguish between clinically meaningful CM subgroups.

Conclusion

The HIT-6 was successfully calibrated using IRT with data from PROMISE-2. Results from these analyses were generally consistent with previous literature and provided supportive evidence that the HIT-6 is well suited for measuring the impact of headache and migraine in the CM population.

Acute Treatment of Migraine

All patients with migraine merit acute treatment, which should optimally achieve a sustained pain-free response. Maximum acute treatment is associated with reduced risk of transformation of episodic to chronic migraine. The American Headache Society published the most recent complete evidence assessment of acute migraine treatments in 2015. Noninvasive neuromodulation represents a new, Food and Drug Administration-approved nonsignificant risk alternative for acute migraine therapy. The future of acute migraine treatment includes new devices and formulations of existing medications, new classes of acute medications, and new noninvasive nonsignificant risk neuromodulation devices, with many anticipated in the next few years.

Unmet needs in the acute treatment of migraine attacks and the emerging role of calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonists: An integrative review

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a prevalent and chronic disease associated with high rates of disability and significant financial and socioeconomic burden. Current acute treatments for migraine attacks include both migraine-specific (e.g., triptans, ergotamines) and nonspecific (e.g., nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) medications; however, significant unmet treatment needs remain.

OBJECTIVES

The authors sought to characterize the nature and drivers of unmet treatment needs in the acute treatment of migraine attacks and describe emerging migraine-specific treatments, that is, calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonists.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed searches were conducted using search terms for studies of unmet migraine treatment needs and CGRP receptor antagonists. Additionally, studies presented at recent headache-focused congresses were included.

CONCLUSIONS

Forty percent of people with migraine report at least 1 unmet treatment need. Many people are unable to use migraine-specific or nonspecific agents because of contraindications, precautions, and tolerability issues. Disease burden (disability, headache severity/frequency) remains high even in those receiving migraine-specific medications. The oral CGRP receptor antagonists, ubrogepant and rimegepant, demonstrated efficacy in reducing migraine pain, migraine-associated symptoms, and disability, with a low adverse event profile, similar to placebo.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The availability and use of CGRP receptor antagonists may help reduce the extent of unmet needs in the treatment of migraine attacks, resulting in more patients receiving treatment and better outcomes for people with migraine. Nurse practitioners are well positioned to increase rates of migraine diagnosis/treatment (another key unmet need), using consensus guidelines to guide their approach.

Content Validity of HIT-6 as a Measure of Headache Impact in People With Migraine: A Narrative Review

Background

The short‐form Headache Impact Test (HIT‐6) is a widely used patient‐reported outcome measure that assesses the negative effects of headaches on normal activity. It was developed using the general headache population and prior to the establishment of the now well‐accepted FDA patient‐reported guidance.

Objective

The objective of this narrative review was to examine existing qualitative research in patients with migraine and headache, providing insight into the relevance and meaningfulness of HIT‐6 items to the lives of migraine patients.

Methods

Articles were identified through database searches (National Library of Medicine and Google Scholar) and review of reference lists of candidate articles.

Results

A total of 3227 articles were identified through database and hand searching. Of these, 12 contained patient‐ or expert‐generated qualitative information regarding headache patients’ experience (8 specific to migraine [episodic and chronic] patients and 4 citing general headache patients). The combined publications described a total of 283 patient interviews. Overarching themes and specific information were identified that provide support of the relevance of content for each HIT‐6 item to migraine patients’ lives. Identified effects of headaches on patients with migraine included limitations in daily activities, needing to lie down during headaches, feeling tired, being irritated by headaches, difficulty concentrating, and the experience of pain. Further, previous research specific to the HIT‐6 indicated that patients understood the instructions, items, and response scales as intended by the instrument authors.

Conclusions

This narrative literature review demonstrates qualitative research support for the relevance of the items of the HIT‐6 in migraine patients, supporting its ongoing use in clinical migraine research and practice.

Unmet Acute Treatment Needs From the 2017 Migraine in America Symptoms and Treatment Study

Objectives

To characterize unmet treatment needs in a sample of Migraine in America Symptoms and Treatment (MAST) Study participants using oral, acute prescription migraine medications.

Background

The MAST Study is a 2017 study of US adults with migraine that profiles current treatment patterns and identifies and quantifies unmet treatment needs.

Methods

Cross‐sectional data from an online survey of US adults meeting ICHD‐3 beta criteria for migraine. For inclusion in this paper, respondents self‐reported a history of 3 or more monthly headache days (MHDs) in the past 3 months and at least 1 MHD in the past 30 days, and current use of orally administered acute prescription medication for headache. Three domains of unmet need were identified: inadequate treatment response (ie, inadequate 2‐hour pain freedom, recurrence within 24 hours of initial relief), demanding attack characteristics (rapid onset of attack, headache associated with sleep), and unique patient characteristics (opioid or barbiturate overuse, cardiovascular comorbidity). Sociodemographics, oral medication use, and coexisting conditions and symptoms (ie, level of treatment optimization, psychological symptoms, attack‐related cutaneous allodynia, and migraine symptom severity) were assessed for each domain and by the number of unmet need domains.

Results

Overall, 15,133 respondents met inclusion criteria, 26.0% (3930/15,133) reported current use of oral acute prescription medication to treat headache. Eligible participants had a mean age of 45.0 years, 73.6% [2892/3930] were women and 81.1% [3186/3930]) were White. A total of 95.8% (3765/3930) of respondents had at least 1 unmet acute treatment need; 89.5% (3516/3930) reported demanding attack characteristics, 74.1% (2912/3930) reported inadequate treatment response, and 16.1% (634/3930) presented with unique patient characteristics. Common areas of unmet need were rapid headache onset (65.3% [2567/3930]), moderate to severe disability (55.6% [2187/3930]), inadequate 2‐hours pain freedom (49.0% [1892/3930]), and headache recurrence within 24 hours (38.0% [1493/3930]). An increasing number of unmet treatment need domains was associated with worsening psychological symptoms, attack‐related cutaneous allodynia and migraine symptom severity.

Conclusion

Nearly all MAST Study respondents using acute oral prescription medications for migraine reported at least 1 unmet treatment need. As unmet needs increased, so did coexisting conditions and symptom severity.

Manual Therapy and Quality of Life in People with Headache: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

People with headache usually experienced significantly lower health-related quality of life (HRQoL) than the healthy subjects. The goal of this systematic review was to evaluate the effectiveness of manual therapy on HRQoL in patients with tension-type headache (TTH), migraine (MH) or cervicogenic headache (CGH).

RECENT FINDINGS

We searched randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on MEDLINE, COCHRANE and PEDro databases. Treatment was manual therapy compared to usual care or placebo. The outcome was the HRQoL that could be measured by Headache Impact Test (HIT-6), Headache Disability Inventory (HDI), Migraine Disability Assessment Questionnaire (MIDAS) and Short Form Health Survey 12/36 (SF-12/36). For the RCT internal validity, we used the Cochrane risk of bias (RoB) tool. For the level of evidence, we used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach (GRADE). We identified a total of 10 RCTs, 7 of which were included into the meta-analysis. For HIT-6 scale, meta-analysis showed statistically significant differences in favour to manual therapy both after treatment (mean difference (MD) - 3.67; 95% CI from - 5.71 to - 1.63) and at follow-up (MD - 2.47; 95% CI from - 3.27 to - 1.68). For HDI scale, meta-analysis showed statistically significant differences in favour to manual therapy both after treatment (MD - 4.01; 95% CI from - 5.82 to - 2.20) and at follow-up (MD - 5.62; 95% CI from - 10.69 to - 0.54). Other scales provided inconclusive results. Manual therapy should be considered as an effective approach in improving the quality of life in patients with TTH and MH, while in patients with CGH, the results were inconsistent. Those positive results should be considered with caution due to the very low level of evidence. Researchers should in future design primary studies using valid and reliable disease-specific outcome measures.

Acute Treatment of Migraine

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article provides a framework to help providers formulate a plan for the acute treatment of migraine. Topics covered include the cost-effective patient-centered approach known as stratified care and a summary of evidence-based treatment options that are currently available. Strategies for improving treatment response, troubleshooting suboptimal results, and addressing the needs of special populations are also reviewed.

RECENT FINDINGS

Both the American Headache Society and the Canadian Headache Society have released evidence-based assessments and reviews of acute treatments for migraine that can be used to help guide treatment decisions. Although several older medications have been re-released with new formulations or new delivery systems, several new medications have also become available or are in the final phases of study, further increasing the number of options available for patients.

SUMMARY

The acute management of migraine should incorporate a stratified care model in concert with evidence-based treatment options. The response to treatment should be monitored regularly, and measures should be taken to identify suboptimal tolerability or efficacy.

Predictors of allodynia in persons with migraine: Results from the Migraine in America Symptoms and Treatment (MAST) study

Background

Cutaneous allodynia is a common clinical feature of migraine that has been associated with reduced efficacy of acute migraine treatments and an increased risk of disease progression.

Objective

Identify factors associated with allodynia in a sample of adults with migraine.

Methods

An online survey panel was used to identify adults with migraine who averaged at least 1 monthly headache day over the previous 3 months. Data on sociodemographics, headache frequency, headache pain intensity, migraine symptom severity, medication use, depression and anxiety, and cutaneous allodynia (via the Allodynia Symptom Checklist) were obtained. Binary logistic modeling predicted the presence of allodynia. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated.

Results

In total, 15,133 individuals with migraine met the eligibility criteria. Mean age was 43.1 years, 73.0% were female, and 81.0% were Caucasian. Allodynia was present in 39.9%. The fully adjusted model, controlling for sociodemographics and headache features, demonstrated that allodynia was significantly associated with a higher migraine symptom severity score (odds ratio 1.17, confidence interval 1.15, 1.19) and more severe pain intensity (odds ratio 1.11, confidence interval 1.08, 1.14); probable depression and/or anxiety (odds ratio 1.83, confidence interval 1.67, 2.00); and overuse of acute medication (odds ratio 1.23, confidence interval 1.09, 1.38). A higher number of monthly headache days increased the likelihood of allodynia, but the effect was attenuated in the fully adjusted model.

Conclusion

In a representative sample of US adults with migraine, there were significant associations between allodynia and headache frequency and intensity, anxiety and/or depression, symptom severity, and acute medication overuse.

Migraine Progression: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a common and often debilitating neurological disease. It can be divided into episodic and chronic subforms based on the number of monthly headache days. Because only a subset of individuals with episodic migraine (EM) progress to chronic migraine (CM) over any given time period, understanding the factors that predict the new onset of CM or "migraine progression" may provide insights into the mechanisms, pathophysiology, prevention, and treatment of CM. In this review, we identify and summarize studies that report risk factors associated with the new onset of CM or related chronic headache diagnoses, group these risk factors and report the strength of evidence for the identified risk factors.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review of studies that identify risk factors for the new onset of CM or related chronic headache diagnoses such as transformed migraine (TM) and chronic daily headache (CDH).

METHODS

Herein we summarize the findings of studies of risk factors associated with the new onset of CM/TM, CDH, or related diagnoses from the English language literature published before March 2018. The PubMed database was searched for relevant studies. Longitudinal studies with follow-up data and case-control studies were included in this qualitative synthesis. We report methodology, analytic criteria, and results for each manuscript and for the parent study. Next, we review the strength of evidence for each of the identified risk factors using a modified version of AB Hill's criteria for causation and rank evidence as fair, moderate, or strong. We categorized risk factors as nonmodifiable, modifiable and based on putative mechanisms. We further categorized risk factors into sociodemographics, lifestyle factors and habits, headache features, comorbid and concomitant diseases and conditions and pharmacologic treatment-related. Finally, we review theories of the pathophysiology underlying the development of new onset chronic migraine or increasing attack frequency.

RESULTS

The PubMed search yielded 1870 records after duplicates were removed. Nine additional records were identified through expert consultation and other methods (eg, citations found as references in manuscripts identified in the literature review and through communication with the authors of manuscripts included in the review). The 1879 manuscripts were screened against the inclusion and exclusion criteria and 109 were found to be potentially eligible. Of 109 full-text articles, 17 studies were identified as meeting the prespecified criteria based on the consensus of all authors. Of the 17 full texts, 13 were longitudinal cohort studies and 4 were case-controlled studies. We found strength of evidence ranging from fair to strong for the identified risk factors. The strongest data were found for increased headache day frequency, depression, and medication overuse/high-frequency use. Risk factors for new onset CM and CDH in children and adolescents were similar to those identified in adults.

CONCLUSIONS

A range of risk factors for the new onset of CM/TM, CDH, or related chronic headache diseases were identified with the strongest data supporting increased headache day frequency, acute medication overuse/high-frequency use and depression, which are potentially modifiable risk factors. Modifiable risk factors may provide targets for intervention. The lack of strong evidence or any evidence does not imply that there is not a relationship between a particular risk factor and new onset CM or related disease; but may indicate little or no research or that research did not have sufficient methodological rigor. In addition, it is likely that additional risk factors exist which have not yet been identified. Putative factors include pro-inflammatory states and pro-thrombotic states. Development of central sensitization and increased activation of the trigeminal nociceptive pathways may be drivers of the new onset of CM or CDH. Future research may include the systematic testing of interventions targeting modifiable risk factors to determine if progression can be prevented as well as continued exploration of the benefits of treating these risk factors among people with CM in an effort to increase rates of remission. Future work should also consider the natural fluctuations in headache day frequency and examine progression in terms of continuous definitions rather than or in addition to a dichotomous boundary.

The American Headache Society Position Statement On Integrating New Migraine Treatments Into Clinical Practice

OBJECTIVE

To provide healthcare professionals with updated guidance in the use of novel preventive and acute treatments for migraine in adults.

BACKGROUND

The principles of preventive and acute pharmacotherapy for patients with migraine have been outlined previously, but the emergence of new technologies and treatments, as well as new formulations of previously established treatments, has created a need for an updated guidance on the preventive and acute treatment of migraine.

METHODS

This statement is based on a review of existing guidelines and principles for preventive and acute treatment of migraine, as well as the results of recent clinical trials of drugs and devices for these indications. Input was sought from health insurance providers, employers, pharmacy benefit service companies, device manufacturers, pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, patients, and patient advocates. Expert clinicians and researchers in the field of headache medicine from across North America and the European Union provided input and feedback.

RESULTS

The principles of pharmacologic preventive treatment of migraine with oral treatments have been as follows: use evidence-based treatments when possible and appropriate; start with a low dose and titrate slowly; reach a therapeutic dose if possible; allow for an adequate treatment trial duration; establish expectations of therapeutic response and adverse events; and maximize adherence. Newer injectable treatments may work faster and may not need titration. The principles of acute treatment include: use evidence-based treatments when possible and appropriate; treat early after the onset of a migraine attack; choose a nonoral route of administration for selected patients; account for tolerability and safety issues; consider self-administered rescue treatments; and avoid overuse of acute medications. Neuromodulation and biobehavioral therapy may be appropriate for preventive and acute treatment, depending on the needs of individual patients. Neuromodulation may be useful for patients who prefer nondrug therapies or who respond poorly, cannot tolerate, or have contraindications to pharmacotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

This statement updates prior recommendations and outlines the indications for initiating, continuing, combining, and switching preventive and acute treatments of migraine.

Migraine in America Symptoms and Treatment (MAST) Study: Baseline Study Methods, Treatment Patterns, and Gender Differences

OBJECTIVES

To summarize the baseline methods for the Migraine in America Symptoms and Treatment (MAST) Study and evaluate gender differences in sociodemographics and headache features; consultation and diagnosis patterns; and patterns of acute and preventive treatment use for migraine among study participants.

BACKGROUND

The MAST Study is a longitudinal, internet-based panel study of symptoms, approaches to management, and unmet treatment needs among US adults with migraine. This analysis focuses on the initial cross-sectional survey, conducted beginning in 2016, and is intended to update results from earlier national epidemiologic surveys of people with migraine in the United States.

METHODS

Respondents to the MAST Study were recruited from a US nationwide online research panel. Stratified random sampling identified a representative cohort of adults (aged ≥18 years). We administered a validated diagnostic screener based on modified ICHD-3 beta criteria to identify individuals with migraine averaging at least 1 monthly headache day (MHD) over the previous 3 months. A baseline assessment evaluated sociodemographic and headache features, patterns of consultation and diagnosis, and use of acute and preventive medications for migraine. Frequency data and chi-square contrasts (P < .05) were used to compare respondents based on gender.

RESULTS

Baseline survey data (N = 95,821) identified 18,353 respondents who met criteria for migraine, including 15,133 (women n = 11,049, men n = 4084) reporting at least 1 MHD for the preceding 3 months. The mean age of the sample was 43.1 (13.6) years; 73.0% of respondents were women, and 81.0% were Caucasian. Compared with men, women were younger (46.1 vs 42.0 years; P < .001); had more MHDs (5.6 vs 5.3; P < .001); and were more likely to report moderate or severe headache-related disability (45.9% vs 35.8%; P < .001) and cutaneous allodynia (43.7% vs 29.5%; P < .001). The lifetime rate of medical consultation for headache was 79.8% overall and slightly higher in women than in men. Women were more likely than men to have been diagnosed with migraine (48.3% vs 38.8%, P < .001). While 95.1% of people with migraine currently used acute treatment, the majority (58.9%) used over-the-counter (OTC) drugs to the exclusion of prescription drugs, while 11.3% used exclusively prescription drugs, and 20.5% used both. Among acute prescription medication users, women were more likely than men to take triptans (17.7% vs 14.3%, P < .001), while men were more likely than women to take opioids (14.5% vs 9.2%, P < .001). Oral formulations were used predominately (92.7% of the medication users), but men were more likely to use nasal sprays (13.6% vs 9.4%, P < .001) and injectables (7.9% vs 3.4%, P <  .001). Men (14.5%) were also significantly more likely than women (10.4%) to be taking daily oral preventive medication (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

The MAST Study identified a large sample of women and men with migraine from a sampling frame that broadly resembles the US population. Low participation rate increases the risk of response bias, however, comparisons with Census data and prior population studies for the demographic and headache characteristics of the current sample suggest that findings are generalizable to the population of people with migraine. Women had more MHDs than men, and they were more likely to report migraine-related disability and cutaneous allodynia. The lifetime consultation rate for headache was relatively high, but many with migraine symptoms reported never having received a diagnosis of migraine from a healthcare professional. Acute prescription and preventive migraine treatments are underused. Migraine persists as an underdiagnosed and undertreated public health problem in 2018, and there are many opportunities to improve the diagnosis and treatment of people with this painful, disabling condition.

Assessing the impact of headaches and the outcomes of treatment: A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs)

Aims To critically appraise, compare and synthesise the quality and acceptability of multi-item patient reported outcome measures for adults with chronic or episodic headache. Methods Systematic literature searches of major databases (1980-2016) to identify published evidence of PROM measurement and practical properties. Data on study quality (COSMIN), measurement and practical properties per measure were extracted and assessed against accepted standards to inform an evidence synthesis. Results From 10,903 reviewed abstracts, 103 articles were assessed in full; 46 provided evidence for 23 PROMs: Eleven specific to the health-related impact of migraine (n = 5) or headache (n = 6); six assessed migraine-specific treatment response/satisfaction; six were generic measures. Evidence for measurement validity and score interpretation was strongest for two measures of impact, Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (MSQ v2.1) and Headache Impact Test 6-item (HIT-6), and one of treatment response, the Patient Perception of Migraine Questionnaire (PPMQ-R). Evidence of reliability was limited, but acceptable for the HIT-6. Responsiveness was rarely evaluated. Evidence for the remaining measures was limited. Patient involvement was limited and poorly reported. Conclusion While evidence is limited, three measures have acceptable evidence of reliability and validity: HIT-6, MSQ v2.1 and PPMQ-R. Only the HIT-6 has acceptable evidence supporting its completion by all "headache" populations.

Guidelines of the International Headache Society for controlled trials of preventive treatment of chronic migraine in adults

Background

Quality clinical trials form an essential part of the evidence base for the treatment of headache disorders. In 1991, the International Headache Society Clinical Trials Standing Committee developed and published the first edition of the Guidelines for Controlled Trials of Drugs in Migraine. In 2008, the Committee published the first specific guidelines on chronic migraine. Subsequent advances in drug, device, and biologicals development, as well as novel trial designs, have created a need for a revision of the chronic migraine guidelines.

Objective

The present update is intended to optimize the design of controlled trials of preventive treatment of chronic migraine in adults, and its recommendations do not apply to trials in children or adolescents.

Assessing and treating primary headaches and cranio-facial pain in patients undergoing rehabilitation for neurological diseases

BACKGROUND

Pain is a very common condition in patient undergoing rehabilitation for neurological disease; however the presence of primary headaches and other cranio-facial pains, particularly when they are actually or apparently independent from the disability for which patient is undergoing rehabilitation, is often neglected. Diagnostic and therapeutic international and national guidelines, as well as tools for the subjective measure of head pain are available and should also be applied in the neurorehabilitation setting. This calls for searching the presence of head pain, independently from the rehabilitation needs, since pain, either episodic or chronic, interferes with patient performance by affecting physical and emotional status. Pain may also interfere with sleep and therefore hamper recovery.

METHODS

In our role of task force of the Italian Consensus Conference on Pain in Neurorehabilitation (ICCPN), we have elaborated specific recommendations for diagnosing and treating head pains in patients undergoing rehabilitation for neurological diseases.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

In this narrative review, we describe the available literature that has been evaluated in order to define the recommendations and outline the needs of epidemiological studies concerning headache and other cranio-facial pain in neurorehabilitation.

Allodynia Is Associated With Initial and Sustained Response to Acute Migraine Treatment: Results from the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention Study

OBJECTIVE

In a population sample of persons with migraine treating with a single category of acute migraine medication, to identify rates and factors associated with acute treatment outcomes, including 2-hour pain freedom (2hPF), 24-hour pain response (24hPR), and 24-hour sustained pain response (24hSPR). Key predictors include acute treatment type (triptans and other medication categories), the influence of allodynia on response to medication, and the interaction between medication category and presence of allodynia in response to treatment among people with migraine.

BACKGROUND

Cutaneous allodynia was previously associated with inadequate 2hPF, 24hPR, and 24hSPR (sustained response at 24 hours among those with adequate 2hPF) among people with migraine in the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention (AMPP) Study.

METHODS

The AMPP Study obtained data from a representative US sample of persons with migraine by mailed questionnaire. The 2006 survey included 8233 people with migraine aged 18 or over who completed the Migraine Treatment Optimization Questionnaire (mTOQ). mTOQ was used to assess acute treatment outcomes including 2hPF, 24hPR, and 24hSPR. Eligible individuals used only a single category of acute prescription migraine treatments (n  =  5236, 63.6%). This sample was stratified into 5 categories of type of acute prescription headache medication used (triptans, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, barbiturate-combinations, opioids, and opioid combinations and ergot alkaloids). Separate binary logistic regression models evaluated: (1) triptans vs other medication types; (2) presence of allodynia vs no allodynia; and (3) the interaction of medication category with allodynia. Sociodemographic variables, health insurance status, over-the-counter and preventive medication use were included as covariates. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were generated for each acute treatment outcome.

RESULTS

Among eligible participants, the mean age was 46 years, and 82.5% were women. The triptan use group had better outcomes than other medication groups for 2hPF (OR range: 2.00-2.63, all significant except ergot alkaloids) and 24hPR (OR range: 2.10-6.22, all significant). No significant medication effects were found for the 24hSPR outcome. The presence of allodynia was associated with significantly worse outcomes for both 2hPF (OR range: 1.42-1.55, all significant) and 24hPR (OR range: 1.30-1.32, all significant, except for ergot alkaloids, P  =  .051). Allodynia effects were not significant for the 24hSPR. The interaction between medication and allodynia was also not significant (OR range for 2hPF: .68-2.02; OR range for 2hPR: .35-1.34; OR range for 24hSPR: 1.21-2.72) in any of the models, suggesting allodynia is an important predictor of treatment response regardless of the medication group prescribed.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of triptan medication was associated with significantly better 2hPF (except vs ergot alkaloids) and significantly better 24hPR outcomes compared with other acute medication categories. The presence of allodynia significantly increased the likelihood of an inadequate treatment response for both of these outcomes. Triptan use was generally associated with the best outcomes. Because allodynia was associated with inadequate outcomes for all medication groups, we suggest that allodynia is an area of unmet treatment need.

Sequential brief neuropsychological evaluation of migraineurs is identical to controls

BACKGROUND

Evidence of attack-related cognitive dysfunction in migraine is growing. Controversy exists on whether cognitive dysfunction, mainly executive, may persist between attacks. Measuring the impact of cognitive function is gaining importance in clinical and research settings in migraine.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the performance of interictal migraine patients to controls in an assembled neuropsychological battery focused on executive functions and to study the practice effect of its repeated applications.

METHOD

Assembly of the battery that was then applied twice within 6 weeks to interictal migraineurs and matched healthy controls.

RESULTS

Migraine patients (n = 24) and controls (n = 24) had similar performance in both applications of the battery. There was a slight practice effect between the first and second evaluation, significant in Stroop Interference test (P = 0.002, multiplicity corrected); a meaningful score change was determined for each raw test scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Interictal migraineurs and controls performance is identical in a brief cognitive battery focused on executive functions. Repeated applications produced a practice effect that was quantified.

The impact of cognitive symptoms on migraine attack-related disability

Background

The socio-economic impact of migraine is mostly related to work loss either by absenteeism or decreased work performance. Migraine-associated cognitive dysfunction during an attack may contribute to these difficulties.

Objective

The objective of this article is to analyze the presence and relevance of cognitive symptoms during migraine attacks and to relate their intensity and symptom-related disability with other migraine-defining symptoms.

Methods

Consecutive migraine patients of a headache clinic completed diaries scoring each migraine symptom (including cognitive symptoms) intensity and symptom-related disability.

Results

Of 100 consecutive patients included in this study, 34 (all females, age average 31.8 ± 8.8 years) returned information on 229 attacks, on average 6.7 per participant. Every symptom’s intensity was always rated slightly higher than the disability it caused. Pain was the symptom scored with the highest intensity and disability, followed by cognitive symptoms (difficulty in thinking and worsening with mental effort) and photo- and phonophobia. Scoring was independent of any of the clinical variables. Attack intensity and disability scores correlated with intensity and disability from pain and from worsening with mental effort.

Conclusions

Attack-related cognitive symptoms are intense and disabling. Some attack-related cognitive symptoms correlate to intensity and disability subjectively attributed to the migraine attack. Cognitive performance should be addressed as a valuable secondary endpoint in trials of acute migraine treatment.