Measuring the functional status and well-being of patients with migraine headache

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

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

Neurological Health: Not Merely the Absence of Disease: Current Wellbeing Instruments Across the Spectrum of Neurology

OBJECTIVE

Well-being and quality of life can vary independently of disease. Instruments measuring well-being and quality of life are commonly used in neurology, but there has been little investigation into the extent in which they accurately measure wellbeing/quality of life or if they merely reflect a diseased state of an individual.

DESIGN

Systematic searches, thematic analysis and narrative synthesis were undertaken. Individual items from instruments represented in ≥ 5 publications were categorised independently, without prior training, by five neurologists and one well-being researcher, as relating to 'disease-effect' or 'Well-being' with a study-created instrument. Items were additionally categorised into well-being domains.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMCARE and PsycINFO from 1990 to 2020 were performed, across the 13 most prevalent neurological diseases.

RESULTS

301 unique instruments were identified. Multiple sclerosis had most unique instruments at 92. SF-36 was used most, in 66 studies. 22 instruments appeared in ≥ 5 publications: 19/22 'well-being' outcome instruments predominantly measured disease effect (Fleiss kappa = .60). Only 1/22 instruments was categorised unanimously as relating to well-being. Instruments predominantly measured mental, physical and activity domains, over social or spiritual.

CONCLUSIONS

Most neurological well-being or quality-of-life instruments predominantly measure disease effect, rather than disease-independent well-being. Instruments differed widely in well-being domains examined.

The Impact of Migraine Disease on Work Productivity and Quality of Life Among the Adults in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Background: Migraine is a chronic unilateral headache associated with nausea and vomiting. According to the World Health Organization, it is listed as the 19th disabling disease. Multiple studies found an inverse relationship between the frequency of the attacks and the low quality of life score. Roughly, one-third of migraine attacks occur during workdays, with a higher incidence of reduced productivity and missed days among chronic patients (>15 headache days per month).

Objective: The objective of this article was to determine the migraine impact on work productivity and quality of life in Riyadh's general population in Saudi Arabia.

Materials and methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted among participants suspected or diagnosed with migraine in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The survey measured the quality of life with the effect of migraine headaches by the Migraine Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (MSQ). Patients suspected of migraines were asked to complete the ID Migraine™ three-item screening test.

Results: In this study, we were able to collect data from 223 patients diagnosed with migraine. Among the participants, 99.1% of them were Saudi Arabian, and 93.7% were females. Moreover, 33.6% of the participants were included in the study upon their self-report and 66.4% according to the ID migraine assessment. The mean scores of limitations of the patients’ performance, interrupting normal activities, and emotions were 51.83, 57.11, and 59.94, respectively.

Conclusion: Our study confirmed the results reported in previous studies that migraine has a negative impact on the quality of life of the patients and their ability to work. An awareness program should be conducted to increase the awareness of the importance of the early diagnosis of migraine.

Managing of Migraine in the Workplaces: Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices of Italian Occupational Physicians

Background and Objectives: Migraine is a debilitating disorder, whose incidence peak in the age group of 30–39 years overlaps with the peak of employment years, potentially representing a significant issue for occupational physicians (OP). The present study was performed in order to characterize their knowledge, attitudes and practices on migraine in the workplaces. Materials and Methods: A convenience sample of 242 Italian OP (mean age 47.8 ± 8.8 years, males 67.4%) participated in an internet-based survey by completing a structured questionnaire. Results: Adequate general knowledge of migraine was found in the majority of participants. Migraine was identified as a common and severe disorder by the majority of respondents (54.0% and 60.0%). Overall, 61.2% of participants acknowledged migraine as difficult to manage in the workplace, a status that made it more likely for OP understanding its potential frequency (Odds Ratio [OR] 3.672, 95% confidence interval [95%CI] 1.526–8.831), or reported previous managing of complicated cases requiring conditional fitness to work judgement (OR 4.761, 95%CI 1.781–2.726). Moreover, professionals with a qualification in occupational medicine (OR 20.326, 95%CI 2.642–156.358), acknowledging the difficult managing of migraine in the workplaces (OR 2.715, 95%CI 1.034–7.128) and having received any request of medical surveillance for migraine (OR 22.878, 95%CI 4.816–108.683), were more likely to recommend specific requirements for migraineur workers. Conclusions: Migraine was recognized as a common disorder, but also as a challenging clinical problem for OP. Participating OP exhibited a substantial understanding of migraine and its triggers, but residual false beliefs and common misunderstanding may impair the proper management of this disorder, requiring improved and specifically targeted interventions.

Patient-reported outcomes, health-related quality of life, and acute medication use in patients with a ≥ 75% response to eptinezumab: subgroup pooled analysis of the PROMISE trials

Background

PROMISE-1 and PROMISE-2 evaluated the preventive efficacy, tolerability, and safety of eptinezumab, a calcitonin gene-related peptide–targeted monoclonal antibody, in adults with episodic (EM) and chronic migraine (CM), finding significant reductions in migraine frequency. This post hoc analysis compared patient-reported outcomes (PROs), health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and acute medication use in patients with a ≥ 75% migraine responder rate (MRR) after treatment with eptinezumab to patients with a ≥ 50– < 75% MRR.

Methods

PROMISE-1 and PROMISE-2 were phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies. This analysis included patients from both studies treated with eptinezumab 100 mg or 300 mg who experienced ≥ 75% and ≥ 50–< 75% MRR over Weeks 1–12 (wks1–12). In both studies, HRQoL was measured by the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) and acute medication usage. PROMISE-2 also included the 6-item Headache Impact Test (HIT-6), patient-identified most bothersome symptom (PI-MBS), and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC).

Results

In PROMISE-1, a total of 115/443 (26.0%; 100 mg, n = 49, 300 mg, n = 66) and 120/443 (27.0%; 100 mg, n = 61, 300 mg, n = 59) eptinezumab-treated patients achieved ≥ 75% and ≥ 50–< 75% MRR over wks1–12, respectively. In PROMISE-2, a total of 211/706 (30.0%; 100 mg, n = 95; 300 mg, n = 116) and 209/706 (29.6%; 100 mg, n = 110, 300 mg, n = 99) eptinezumab-treated patients achieved ≥ 75% and ≥ 50–< 75% MRR over wks1–12, respectively. EM and CM patients with ≥ 75% and ≥ 50–< 75% MRR over wks1–12 showed reduced use of acute headache medication and increased HRQoL to normative levels across SF-36 domains of bodily pain, social functioning, and physical functioning. In CM patients with ≥ 75% and ≥ 50–< 75% MRR over wks1–12, the mean change in HIT-6 total score with eptinezumab (pooled) was − 11.7 and − 7.6, respectively. “Very much” or “much” improvement responses were reported in 41.8% and 16.5% on PI-MBS and 36.2% and 20.0% on PGIC in ≥ 75% and ≥ 50–< 75% MRR, respectively.

Conclusion

Eptinezumab treatment induced a ≥ 75% MRR over wks1–12 in the majority of patients. This patient subgroup reported substantial improvements in PROs associated with headache-related life impact and HRQoL, and reductions in acute headache medication use, which were more marked than those in the ≥ 50–< 75% responders. This study supports the clinical meaningfulness of ≥ 75% MRR for patients with either EM or CM.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT02559895 (PROMISE-1), NCT02974153 (PROMISE-2).

Quality of Life and Disability Among Migraine Patients: A Single-Center Study in AlAhsa, Saudi Arabia

Background Migraine is a major public health issue that leads to frequent visits to medical care. It is generally considered a disabling disease among individuals below the age of 50 years old predominantly seen in females. Migraine headache has a strong influence on disability, functional impairments, and psychological effects. The majority of the physicians fail to address the degree and extent of impediment caused by a migraine, which contributes to low quality of life and disability. Thus, this study aims to assess the health-related quality of life (QOL) and disability among migraine sufferers in AlAhsa, Saudi Arabia. Material and methods This descriptive cross-sectional study was carried out in the neurology clinics at King Fahad Hospital-Hofuf, AlAhsa, Saudi Arabia, from May to August 2021. The data were collected through a self-administered questionnaire. The migraine-specific quality of life questionnaire (MSQ), version 2.1, was used. MSQ is measured in three domains, including role function restrictive (RR), preventive (RP), and emotional function (EF). Disability related to migraine was assessed by the Migraine Disability Assessment Test (MIDAS). MIDAS classifies disability from no disability to severe disability. Two-tailed with an alpha level of 0.05 considering the significance of a p-value less than or equal to 0.05. The mean scores of QOL domains were compared by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and independent t-tests. Results A total of 101 out of 359 participants were identified to have a migraine. Eighty-two participants met the inclusion criteria, 75.6% were females. The age of the participants ranged from 18 to more than 45 years with a mean age of 36.4 ± 11.9 years old. The mean score of QOL in the restrictive, preventive, and emotional domains were 46.3% ± 21.5%, 52.1% ± 24.3%, and 61.5% ± 30.8%, respectively. More than half of the participants (57.3%) suffered from a severe disability caused by migraines as compared to 20.7% with a moderate disability. Low QOL scores were associated with females and a significant relationship was found between migraine-associated disability and patients' emotional function in QOL. Conclusion Clinicians should routinely evaluate disability related to migraine and QOL as a complementary approach to migraine patients to ensure that patients are receiving proper treatment and whether additional strategies are needed or not.

Is it possible to sort the disability of individuals with migraine based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health? — A Scoping Review

PurposeTo identify the most frequent outcomes related to disability assessed in individuals with migraine and to correlate these findings with the categories of International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health.Material and methodThis scoping review was developed based on studies with adult population (18-55 years) of both sexes and assessing the disability generated by migraine. We included studies in which patients had a diagnosis of migraine based on International Classification of Headache Disorders.Results52 articles were found with 42 outcomes related to 17 categories of International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health, including the four main components of the classification, with seven categories in "Body Functions", one in "Body Structures", four in “Activities and Participation” and five in "Environmental Factors".ConclusionThe findings show that disabilities, activity limitation, or participation restriction generated by migraine can be classified by International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. The components "body functions", "environmental factors" and "activities and participation" were the most identified in the present study. Thus, this classification is important to classify the disability caused by migraine and to guide a rehabilitation more focused onthe patient's real demands, as well as directing the research involving this population.

The prevalence and burden of recurrent headache in Australian adolescents: findings from the longitudinal study of Australian children

Background

Headache disorders are highly prevalent worldwide, but not well investigated in adolescents. Few studies have included representative nationwide samples. This study aimed to present the prevalence and burden of recurrent headache in Australian adolescents.

Methods

The prevalence of recurrent headache, headache characteristics (severity and frequency) and burden on health-related quality of life in Australian children aged 10–17 years were presented, using nationally representative data from the Longitudinal Study of Australian children (LSAC). The LSAC, commencing in 2004, collects data every 2 years from a sample of Australian children of two different age cohorts: B ‘baby’ cohort, aged 0–1 years and K ‘kindergarten’ cohort, aged 4–5 years at the commencement of the study. Face-to-face interviews and self-complete questionnaires have been conducted with the study child and parents of the study child (carer-reported data) at each data collection wave, with seven waves of data available at the time of the current study. Wave 7 of the LSAC was conducted in 2016, with B cohort children aged 12–13 years and K cohort children aged 16–17 years. For the current study, data were accessed for four out of seven waves of available data (Wave 4–7) and presented cross-sectionally for the two cohorts of Australian children, for the included age groups (10–11 years, 12–13 years, 14–15 years and 16–17 years). All available carer-reported questionnaire data pertaining to headache prevalence, severity and frequency, general health and health-related quality of life, for the two cohorts, were included in the study, and presented for male and female adolescents. Carer-reported general health status of the study child and health-related quality of life scores, using the parent proxy-report of the Paediatric Quality of Life Inventory™ 4.0, were compared for male and female adolescents with recurrent headache and compared with a healthy group. Finally, health-related quality of life scores were compared based on headache frequency and severity.

Results

The LSAC study initially recruited 10,090 Australian children (B cohort n = 5107, K cohort n = 4983), and 64.1% of the initial sample responded at wave 7. Attrition rates across the included waves ranged from 26.3% to 33.8% (wave 6 and 7) for the B cohort, and 16.3% to 38.0% (wave 4–7) for the K cohort. Recurrent headache was more common in females, increasing from 6.6% in 10–11 years old females to 13.2% in 16–17 years old females. The prevalence of headache in males ranged from 4.3% to 6.4% across the age groups. Health-related quality of life scores were lower for all functional domains in adolescents with recurrent headache, for both sexes. Headache frequency, but not severity, was significantly associated with lower health-related quality of life scores, in both males and females.

Conclusions

Recurrent headache was common among Australian adolescents and increased in prevalence for females, across the age groups. Frequent recurrent headache is burdensome for both male and female adolescents. This study provides information regarding the prevalence and burden of recurrent headache in the adolescent population based on findings from the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children.

Migraine Disability, Quality of Life, and Its Predictors

Background: Migraine is the most disabling primary headache and is the second most prevalent primary headache affecting middle-aged females more. However, diagnosis and treatment of migraine persists to be inadequate. Despite being a major cause of disability, works done to understand the burden and impact of migraine on daily living remains sparse. Migraine negatively affects one’s sense of well-being in life, and understanding these factors will enable us to better manage the disease.

Objective: To estimate the severity of disability and impairment in quality of life (QOL) secondary to migraine. To enumerate and analyze the factors predicting severity of disability and impairment in QOL secondary to migraine.

Materials and Methods: In this descriptive study, 108 consecutive migraineurs were studied. Headache impact, migraine disability, migraine-specific quality of life (MSQoL), and psychiatric comorbidities were studied using validated questionnaires.

Results: Migraine was seen in 89 females and 19 males with most being in the age group of 20–40 years. Headaches had considerable to relentless impact on the sufferers. Majority of them had a highly significant disability and negatively impacted “MSQoL,”, being affected in all the domains. There was also coexisting anxiety and depression with migraine.

Conclusion: Migraine was more frequently seen in young- and middle-aged females. The longer duration, more frequent migraine attacks, and headache with substantial to severe impact were predictors of both disability and detrimental effects on QOL in migraineurs. Comorbid psychiatric conditions were found to be a significant contributary factor.

Is Single-Drug Prophylaxis in Migraine Prevention a Better Option than Combination Therapy? An Observational Study in a Rural Tertiary Care Center in North West India

Background  Migraine is a primary headache disorder that has a great impact on quality of life of patients. Pharmacologic therapy may be given in acute or abortive form and in the form of preventive therapy. In what form is preventive therapy to be given? Whether monotherapy is to be used or combination therapy? In what cases does combination therapy fare better than monotherapy? These queries are still unanswered. Materials and Methods  All patients with headache reporting to the outpatient department were screened, and those fulfilling inclusion criteria were included in the study. Those patients who had chronic daily headache (headache for 15 or more days in a month) or who had other comorbidities and those who were taking any other drugs and were pregnant were excluded from the study. Baseline parameters, duration of headache, frequency of attacks, severity, and location of headache, triggers, and aggravating factors were recorded. Then, patients were started on abortive and preventive therapy. The follow-up was done at 3 and 6 months and if required earlier. At each follow-up, data regarding frequency, severity, and adverse effects were recorded and analyzed. Results  We studied 105 patients of migraine, out of which 15 (14.3%) were males and 90 (85.7%) were females. Moreover, most (72%) of the patients were of the age group of 30 to 49 years. Only 11 (10.5%) patients required three or more preventive medicines for the control of headache and rest 94 (89.5%) patients were controlled on single (49 patients, i.e., 46.7%) or two 45, that is, 42.9% preventive medicines 49. Conclusion  For the newly diagnosed migraine cases, the single-drug preventive therapy is more useful than the combination of drugs.

Wet Cupping Reduces Pain and Improves Health-related Quality of Life Among Patients with Migraine: A Prospective Observational Study

Objectives

To determine the benefits of wet cupping on pain and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in adult patients with migraine headaches.

Methods

We conducted a prospective observational study of wet cupping in 128 patients referred to the cupping clinic at King Abdulaziz University Hospital, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia between January 2013 and December 2015. Bloodletting was performed at the base of the head and between the shoulders monthly four times. We assessed migraine headache pain using the visual analog scale (VAS) and the quality of life of patients before and after each cupping session using the World Health Organization Quality of Life assessment instrument.

Results

The mean age of the patients was 40.5±11.3 years with a preponderance of females (n = 114, 89.1%). VAS was averaged at 7 before the procedure and reduced to 3 after wet cupping, both during rest and activity (p ≤ 0.005). Ninety-five patients agreed to complete the quality of life questionnaire. There was a significant improvement in the quality of life after wet cupping treatment in most of the displayed items (p < 0.050). None of the patients reported post-procedure complications.

Conclusions

Wet cupping might be considered a complementary treatment for migraine headache pain relief and improvement to a patient’s quality of life.

The validation of the Hungarian version of the ID-migraine questionnaire

Background

Despite its high prevalence, migraine remains underdiagnosed and undertreated. ID-Migraine is a short, self-administrated questionnaire, originally developed in English by Lipton et al. and later validated in several languages. Our goal was to validate the Hungarian version of the ID-Migraine Questionnaire.

Methods

Patients visiting two headache specialty services were enrolled. Diagnoses were made by headache specialists according to the ICHD-3beta diagnostic criteria. There were 309 clinically diagnosed migraineurs among the 380 patients. Among the 309 migraineurs, 190 patients had only migraine, and 119 patients had other headache beside migraine, namely: 111 patients had tension type headache, 3 patients had cluster headache, 4 patients had medication overuse headache and one patient had headache associated with sexual activity also. Among the 380 patients, 257 had only a single type headache whereas 123 patients had multiple types of headache. Test-retest reliability of the ID-Migraine Questionnaire was studied in 40 patients.

Results

The validity features of the Hungarian version of the ID-Migraine questionnaire were the following: sensitivity 0.95 (95% CI, 0.92–0.97), specificity 0.42 (95% CI, 0.31–0.55), positive predictive value 0.88 (95% CI, 0.84–0.91), negative predictive value 0.65 (95% CI, 0.5–0.78), missclassification error 0.15 (95% CI, 0.12–0.19). The kappa coefficient of the questionnaire was 0.77.

Conclusion

The Hungarian version of the ID-Migraine Questionnaire had adequate sensitivity, positive predictive value and misclassification error, but a low specificity and somewhat low negative predictive value.

Quarterly repeat cycles of onabotulinumtoxinA in chronic migraine patients: the benefits of the prolonged treatment on the continuous responders and quality-of-life conversion rate in a real-life setting

OnabotulinumtoxinA was approved for treatment of chronic migraine (CM) after publication of Phase 3 Research Evaluating Migraine Prophylaxis Therapy (PREEMPT) trials. However, the PREEMPT trials lasted only up to 1 year. The main aim of our retrospective study was to evaluate whether a prolonged treatment of onabotulinumtoxinA (18 months, six quarterly cycles) will sustain or further improve the efficacy results and the quality of life achieved at 6 and 12 months. Patients were adults with CM with or without overuse of drugs, with at least six regularly repeat onabotulinumtoxinA treatments, administered according to the PREEMPT protocol. The outcomes were investigated after 6, 12, and 18 months of treatment with respect to baseline and with respect to each previous study time point. Headache days and hours, and dosage of headache medication taken with latency period, were collected from the patients daily. Quality of life was evaluated by means of the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) questionnaire. At each study time point, the proportion of responder patients with respect to baseline was evaluated. For all measures, the baseline data were referred to the previous month before starting. Forty-seven patients were evaluated. Our data show a decrease in the monthly headache days and hours, at each study evaluation, with respect to the previous one. They showed that beyond the first year, a statistically significant difference in the monthly days of headache compared at 18 vs. 12 months is observed. A significantly higher proportion of patients (with a response greater than 75% decrease from baseline in the frequency of headache days and hours) was observed at month 18 compared to month 12. The proportion of patients in MIDAS grade I increased over time, and a statistically significant improvement in MIDAS I score was obtained from month 12 to month 18. A positive modification in the consumption of analgesics over time was observed (p for trend <0.001). The mean acute drug latency strongly decreased over time. Our study confirmed that onabotulinumtoxinA is an effective treatment to reduce headache-related disability and improve patients' quality of life, highlighting that upon repeated administration, the therapy efficacy increases significantly and a progressive trend of "first-time response" is observed for the entire period under consideration.

Quality of Life in Migraine Patients: A Qualitative Study

The impact of migraine on quality of life has been traditionally evaluated by quantitative analysis, but diverse aspects remain insufficiently assessed, so a complementary qualitative approach may have advantages. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of migraine on the quality of life of migraineurs through the perception of patients and their relatives, and healthcare professionals. Qualitative methods were used, including six focus groups and nine personal interviews with 33 migraine patients under physician-directed treatment, five self-medicated patients, five relatives of migraine patients and seven healthcare professionals. Migraine has a negative affect on the quality of life, including physical, emotional and social aspects of daily life such as family, work and social relationships. Family environment and psychological well-being of patients were the aspects most affected according to patients and relatives. Health professionals emphasized work impairment and focused on pharmacological management and on the need for adequate information about migraine for non-medicated patients and patients' relatives. Qualitative methods, such as focus groups and interviews, are a valuable resource for assessing quality of life and well-being of migraine patients. These techniques open up new areas for further research.

Health-related quality of life and ways of coping with stress in patients with migraine

The aim of our study was to examine the relationship between the mode of coping and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with migraine. We have also tried to examine the relationship of disease duration and the frequency of attacks with HRQoL and the ways of coping with stress. The research was done on a sample consisting of 106 participants (95 women and 11 men); mean age of 40 years (IQR 28-48) with the migraine lasting for 10 years (IRQ 5-20 years). The average number of attacks, over the last month, was two attacks (IRQ 1-3 attacks). Ways of coping questionnaire were used to estimate the mode of coping with stress and SF-36 questionnaire for HRQoL. The result showed the self-control as the most common way of coping with stress in patients with migraine. They also confirmed the existence of a significant connection of ways of coping with stress and HRQoL in people with migraine. There is a larger number of significant correlations of ways of coping connected with the domains of mental health than with the physical health. Escape/avoidance is significantly negatively correlated with the largest number of HRQoL domains, especially with existence of significant mental health (ρ = -0.447) and role limitation due to the emotional problems (ρ = -0.361). The number of migraine attacks has greater influence on HRQoL in patients with migraine than the disease duration. Our study showed the existence of significant correlations between the ways of coping with stress and HRQoL, especially with mental domains. In some domains, the correlation was even stronger than the one showing the disease duration and the number of attacks. The above-mentioned results suggest the directions in further formulation of psychological interventions that would be helpful for the additional treatment of migraine.

Patient reported outcomes as endpoints in medical research

This review covers a number of the many design and analytic issues associated with clinical trials that incorporate patient reported outcomes as primary or secondary endpoints. We use a clinical trial designed to evaluate a new therapy for the prevention of migraines to illustrate how endpoints are defined by the objectives of the study, the methods for handling longitudinal assessments with multiple scales or outcomes, and the methods of analysis in the presence of missing data.

Attitudes and Burden of disease among Self-Considered Migraineurs — a Nation-wide Population-based Survey in Sweden

The authors have earlier reported a 1-year prevalence of 13.2 ± 1.9% for migraine in Sweden. This is a subsequent extensive postal survey of the burden of disease and attitudes among migraineurs in a sample ( n = 423, 23% men and 77% women, aged 18-74 years) randomly recruited from all main regions of the country, representative of adults in the general Swedish population with self-considered migraine. Results are presented only from participants who after analysis of symptoms were found to fulfil the International Headache Society's migraine criteria. In order to assess headache duration open-mindedly, the strict time criterion 4-72 h was deliberately disregarded as an inclusion criterion. Individuals who did not consider themselves to have migraine were excluded. Less than half of the group (45%) had received a diagnosis of migraine from a physician. Accordingly, a large number of individuals that would not have come to attention in a clinic-based study have been included. The mean attack frequency was 1.3 per month, and the number of attacks per year in Swedish adults is approximately 10 million. A minority (27%) of sufferers have a majority (68%) of all attacks. The mean attack duration was 19 h. A considerable number of individuals reported attacks < 4 h (15.8%) or > 72 h (6.4%). Less than half of the individuals recovered completely between the attacks. Despite this, only every fourth (27%) participant was currently consulting a physician (6% regularly; 21% occasionally). Most of the migraineurs reported absence from school or work, a negative influence of migraine on the most important aspects of life, and an interest in testing other treatments for migraine during the last year. Of those ( n = 231) migraineurs who had consulted a physician, about 60% were satisfied with information given or treatment offered. This implies, however, that there is still room for improvement in the management of migraine in Sweden.

Assessment of Migraineurs Referred to a Specialist Headache Clinic in Singapore: Diagnosis, Treatment Strategies, Outcomes, Knowledge of Migraine Treatments And Satisfaction

This study aimed to compare (i) migraineurs' diagnosis, treatment strategies and satisfaction when treated by community care physicians (CCPs) and at the specialist headache clinic; (ii) migraineurs' knowledge of migraine treatments and outcomes at baseline and at 3 months' interval. Thirty-eight patients were interviewed at baseline visit and 3 months after neurologist consultation, using a survey form which consisted of a series of self-designed questions, the MIDAS questionnaire and the SF-36 Health Survey. More patients were informed of the diagnosis of migraine by the neurologist than by CCPs. Compared with CCPs, the neurologist was more likely to employ preventive therapies, prescribe triptans and ask patients to keep a headache diary. Patients' number of days with headaches in the last 3 months, pain intensity, MIDAS score and five out of the eight SF-36 domain scores were significantly improved at the 3 months' interval ( P < 0.05) compared with baseline at the specialist headache clinic. More patients recognized migraine-specific therapies and reported satisfaction with treatment after the neurologist consultation. This is the first study detailing significant improvements in patients' clinical outcomes, knowledge of migraine treatments and satisfaction after consultation at a specialist headache clinic in Singapore.

Improvement in Quality of Life and Activity Limitations in Migraine Patients after Prophylaxis. A Prospective Longitudinal Multicentre Study

Improved health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and reduced activity limitations are prime objectives of migraine therapy, but no data on the effect of preventive treatments on these outcomes are available. We monitored changes in HRQOL using the Short Form 36 (SF-36) and headache-related activity limitations using the Migraine Disability Assessment Score (MIDAS) in 141 consecutive migraine without aura patients on prophylaxis. A total of 102 patients completed the 3-month study. Mean (SD) number of headache days/month dropped from 8.0 (3.7) to 5.0 (2.3) ( P <0.001). Mean monthly consumption of acute drugs reduced from 7.4 (3.5) to 4.4 (3.1) ( P <0.001). MIDAS total score reduced (improved) significantly. All SF-36 scale scores increased (improved), most significantly. This first study to assess prospectively the impact of prophylaxis on HRQOL and daily activities in a large series indicates that migraine prophylaxis has the potential to reduce the global burden of migraine on individuals and society.

Cost-Effectiveness of Migraine Prevention: The Case of Topiramate in the UK

The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of topiramate vs. no preventive treatment in the UK. Model inputs included baseline migraine frequency, treatment discontinuation and response, preventive and acute medical cost per attack [2005 GBP (£)] and gain in health utility. Outcomes included monthly migraines averted, acute and preventive treatment costs and cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Topiramate was associated with 1.8 fewer monthly migraines and a QALY gain of 0.0384. The incremental cost of topiramate vs. no preventive treatment was about £10 per migraine averted and £5700 per QALY. Results are sensitive to baseline monthly migraine frequency, triptan use rate and the gain in utility. Incorporating savings from reduced work loss (about £36 per month) suggests that topiramate would be cost saving compared with no preventive treatment. This analysis suggests that topiramate is a cost-effective treatment for migraine prevention compared with no preventive treatment.

Health-Related and Condition-Specific Quality of Life in Episodic Cluster Headache

Health-related quality of life was studied in 35 episodic cluster headache (CH) patients during and after the cluster period, using a generic (SF-36) and a headache-specific (MSQ2.1) instrument. The results were compared with those of age-and sex-matched migraineurs ( n = 53) and healthy persons ( n = 62). During the cluster period patients had lower scores than controls in all SF-36 and MSQ2.1 domains. The difference was significant for most SF-36 and all MSQ2.1 domains. Although CH patients had lower scores than migraineurs on most scales, the difference was significant only on SF-36 scores measuring bodily pain and social functioning. There was a good correlation between the two instruments. After the termination of the cluster period the quality of life of patients was similar to that of headache-free controls. Generic and headache-specific QoL are severely impaired in CH and this impairment is at least as severe as in migraine.

Validation of the Eleven-Point Pain Scale in the Measurement of Migraine Headache Pain

The four-point pain scale (none, mild, moderate, severe) and the 11-point pain scale (0 = no pain, 10 = pain as bad as it could be) have been used in migraine studies to assess treatment efficacy. The primary objective of this study was to investigate the validity and responsiveness of the 11-point pain scale using the four-point pain scale as a benchmark. Using data from 95 migraine patients recruited from headache clinics, this study found that 11-point pain scale scores were highly correlated with four-point pain scores. The correlations between the pain scales were significantly higher than the correlations with quality of life measures such as functional ability and emotional feelings. The 11-point pain scale was 55% more sensitive than the four-point pain scale in detecting clinically important differences. The strong linear relationship between the two pain scales allowed researchers to transform four-point pain scores to 11-point pain scores using regression weights.

Headache in African Americans: An Overlooked Disparity

PURPOSE

The persistence of health disparities in the U.S. has necessitated additional research on race-related health disparities among Americans. Remarkably little research has examined race differences in persons with headache disorders, even though 45 million Americans experience episodic or chronic headaches annually. This review paper examined peer-reviewed publication to examine potential race differences in persons with headache disorders in the areas of headache epidemiology, headache characteristics, psychiatric comorbidity, treatment utilization, and treatment outcomes.

PROCEDURES

A multi-database search (PubMed, Web of Science, PsychlNFO) identified U.S. studies that enrolled racially diverse samples of persons with headache disorders and qualitatively examined potential race-related disparities.

MAIN FINDINGS

Compared to their Caucasian counterparts, African American headache patients are more likely to (i) be diagnosed with comorbid depressive disorders; (ii) report headaches that are more frequent and severe in nature, (iii) have their headaches under-diagnosed and/or undertreated; and (iv) discontinue treatment prematurely, regardless of socioeconomic status.

PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS

State of the science treatments for chronic headaches are efficacious; unfortunately, race-related disparities prevent African American headache patients from benefiting from these treatments. Research is needed that enables African Americans with severe headaches to access current headache treatments to alleviate headache burden on the African American community.

Quality of life in primary headache disorders: A review

BACKGROUND

Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is emerging as an important element of clinical research in primary headache disorders, allowing a measure of the impact of headache on patients' well-being and daily life. A better understanding of this may contribute to improved resource allocations and treatment approaches.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to review available data on HRQoL in primary headache disorders and identify any influencing factors.

METHODS

Database searches including MEDLINE, PsycINFO and EMBASE were performed. Studies that investigated HRQoL in patients with primary headache disorders were included and reviewed. Trials that evaluated the efficacy of medications or interventions were excluded.

RESULTS

A total of 80 articles were included in the review. Both physical and emotional/mental aspects of HRQoL were impaired across headache subtypes, although the extent varied depending on headache type. A number of factors influencing HRQoL were also identified.

CONCLUSION

This narrative review suggests that headache, particularly in its chronic form, has a great impact on HRQoL. Clinical practice should not solely focus on pain alleviation but rather adopt routine assessment of HRQoL. Furthermore, identification and management of associated psychological comorbidities, which can significantly influence HRQoL in headache sufferers, are essential for optimal clinical management.

Quality of life and migraine disability among female migraine patients in a tertiary hospital in Malaysia

BACKGROUND

Disability caused by migraine may be one of the main causes of burden contributing to poor quality of life (QOL) among migraine patients. Thus, this study aimed to measure QOL among migraine sufferers in comparison with healthy controls.

METHODS

Female diagnosed migraine patients (n= 100) and healthy controls (n=100) completed the Malay version of the World Health Organization QOL Brief (WHOQOL-BREF) questionnaire. Only migraine patients completed the Malay version of the Migraine Disability Assessment questionnaire.

RESULTS

Females with migraines had significantly lower total WHOQOL-BREF scores (84.3) than did healthy controls (91.9, P<0.001). Similarly, physical health (23.4 versus 27.7, P<0.001) and psychological health scores (21.7 versus 23.2, P< 0.001) were significantly lower than those for healthy controls. Seventy-three percent of patients experienced severe disability, with significantly higher number of days with headaches (13.8 days/3 months, P< 0.001) and pain scores (7.4, P< 0.013). Furthermore, migraine patients with lower total QOL scores had 1.2 times higher odds of having disability than patients with higher total QOL scores.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study showed that migraine sufferers experienced significantly lower QOL than the control group from a similar population. Disability was severe and frequent and was associated with lower QOL among the migraine patients.

Role of the Extracranial Arteries in Migraine Headache: A Review

The pain of the migraine headache is often so debilitating that it severely compromises quality of life. The vascular component of the trigeminovascular system has been implicated in the pain mechanism. There is, however, debate as to whether the pain originates in the intracranial or extracranial vasculature or in both. In this article, evidence is presented to suggest that the extracranial arteries are the source of the pain in some migraine sufferers.

Migraine preventive therapy: selection of appropriate patients and general principles of management

The goal of this review is to communicate the rationale and the possible benefits of migraine preventive treatments to clinicians and patients, and to address the many problematic issues created by missed diagnosis or misdiagnoses and inadequate migraine management. Successful implementation of migraine preventive treatment requires appropriate patient selection based on several factors, including the frequency of migraine attacks (> or =2-3 attacks/month), the level of disability incurred and the frequency of acute medication usage. Unfortunately, several epidemiologic surveys indicate that preventive therapies are significantly underutilized, which supports the need for greater dialog concerning migraine prevention between consumers and physicians. Effective migraine preventive therapy should reduce the frequency, duration, and severity of migraine, and also improve function, reduce disability, and possibly reduce the risk of worsening the headache syndrome, through acute medication overuse.

Evaluating migraineurs' preferences for migraine treatment outcomes using a choice experiment

OBJECTIVE

The impact of migraines on patients is commonly divided between the level of impairment associated with headache symptoms (headache phase) and the quality-of-life effects immediately following the headache (post-headache phase). Evaluations of migraineurs' productivity losses and health-related quality of life have provided an understanding of the burden associated with the headache and post-headache symptoms, but do not quantify the relative importance of each phase from a patient perspective. In this study, we evaluated migraineurs' willingness to accept trade-offs among symptom severity in the headache and post-headache phases, symptom duration in the headache and post-headache phases, and symptom-free time within a general-preference theoretic framework.

METHODS

We administered a choice-format, conjoint-analysis survey, also called a discrete-choice experiment, to a sample of migraineurs from a nationally representative online consumer panel. After inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied, 510 eligible subjects completed the survey. The survey elicited choices between pairs of migraine profiles describing symptom durations and symptom-free time for the headache and post-headache phase.

RESULTS

Migraineurs in our study were strongly affected by the pain associated with the headache phase. However, experiencing difficulty with daily social and family activities in the post-headache phase also had a statistically significant impact on migraineurs' perceived level of well-being. Migraineurs reported that hypothetical treatments that limited the duration of headache symptoms without allowing them to resume their daily activities for 16 hours after a headache, on average, were less than half as good as treatments that limited both headache and post-headache symptoms.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that treatments that relieve and shorten symptoms during the post-headache phase can offer significant benefits to migraineurs.

"It's a balance between letting it influence life completely and not letting it influence life at all"--a qualitative study of migraine prevention from patients' perspective

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to elucidate migraine prevention from a patient perspective.

METHOD

Twenty-one participants who suffered from migraine were interviewed and the data analysed by means of qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

The analysis revealed two categories; Avoiding migraine triggers and introducing migraine inhibiting strategies. In both categories, decisions were influenced by an appraisal of the advantages versus disadvantages, attitudes, support and knowledge. An overarching theme: "migraine prevention from the patients' perspective is a balance between letting it influence life completely and not letting it influence life at all" was identified from the interviews.

CONCLUSIONS

As migraine is a chronic disorder that cannot be cured, merely relieved, prevention is of great importance. The present study highlights migraine prevention from the patients' perspective and the important issue of how much prevention is allowed to influence life. Either of the directions involves a risk that life can be controlled by migraine. Acceptance of the disease and allowing migraine prevention to influence life to some degree can be a way of regaining control.

IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION

• Migraine prevention from the patients' perspective is described as a balance between letting it influence life completely and not letting it influence life at all, which in either direction can lead to a life controlled by migraine. • To take the patients' perspectives of the illness in consideration as well as finding the most suitable treatment, based on an appraisal of individual advantages versus disadvantages is important to meet the need of the patient and to improve migraine prevention. Increased knowledge about migraine prevention is imperative both in health care and for the individual patient. Support during prevention is requested by patients.

Sumatriptan (rectal route of administration) for acute migraine attacks in adults

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a highly disabling condition for the individual and also has wide-reaching implications for society, healthcare services, and the economy. Sumatriptan is an abortive medication for migraine attacks, belonging to the triptan family. Rectal administration may be preferable to oral for individuals experiencing nausea and/or vomiting.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and tolerability of rectal sumatriptan compared to placebo and other active interventions in the treatment of acute migraine attacks in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, online databases, and reference lists for studies through 13 October 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, placebo- and/or active-controlled studies using rectally administered sumatriptan to treat a migraine headache episode, with at least 10 participants per treatment arm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We used numbers of participants achieving each outcome to calculate relative risk (or 'risk ratio') and numbers needed to treat to benefit (NNT) or harm (NNH) compared to placebo or a different active treatment.

MAIN RESULTS

Three studies (866 participants) compared rectally administered sumatriptan with placebo or an active comparator. Most of the data were for the 12.5 mg and 25 mg doses. For the majority of efficacy outcomes, sumatriptan surpassed placebo. For sumatriptan 12.5 mg versus placebo the NNTs were 5.2 and 3.2 for headache relief at one and two hours, respectively. Results for the 25 mg dose were similar to the 12.5 mg dose, and there were no significant differences between the two doses for any of the outcomes analysed. The NNTs for sumatriptan 25 mg versus placebo were 4.2, 3.2, and 2.4 for pain-free at two hours, headache relief at one hour, and headache relief at two hours, respectively.Relief of functional disability was greater with sumatriptan than with placebo, with NNTs of 8.0 and 4.0 for the 12.5 mg and 25 mg doses, respectively. For the most part, adverse events were transient and mild and were more common with sumatriptan than with placebo, but there were insufficient data to perform any analyses.Direct comparison of sumatriptan with active treatments was limited to one study comparing sumatriptan 25 mg with ergotamine tartrate 2 mg + caffeine 100 mg.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on limited amounts of data, sumatriptan 25 mg, administered rectally, is an effective treatment for acute migraine attacks, with participants in these studies experiencing a significant reduction in headache pain and functional disability within two hours of treatment. The lack of data on relief of headache-associated symptoms or incidence of adverse events limits any conclusions that can be drawn.

Sumatriptan (subcutaneous route of administration) for acute migraine attacks in adults

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a highly disabling condition for the individual and also has wide-reaching implications for society, healthcare services, and the economy. Sumatriptan is an abortive medication for migraine attacks, belonging to the triptan family. Subcutaneous administration may be preferable to oral for individuals experiencing nausea and/or vomiting

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and tolerability of subcutaneous sumatriptan compared to placebo and other active interventions in the treatment of acute migraine attacks in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, online databases, and reference lists for studies through 13 October 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, placebo- and/or active-controlled studies using subcutaneous sumatriptan to treat a migraine headache episode, with at least 10 participants per treatment arm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We used numbers of participants achieving each outcome to calculate relative risk (or 'risk ratio') and numbers needed to treat to benefit (NNT) or harm (NNH) compared to placebo or a different active treatment.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-five studies (9365 participants) compared subcutaneous sumatriptan with placebo or an active comparator. Most of the data were for the 6 mg dose. Sumatriptan surpassed placebo for all efficacy outcomes. For sumatriptan 6 mg versus placebo the NNTs were 2.9, 2.3, 2.2, and 2.1 for pain-free at one and two hours, and headache relief at one and two hours, respectively, and 6.1 for sustained pain-free at 24 hours. Results for the 4 mg and 8 mg doses were similar to the 6 mg dose, with 6 mg significantly better than 4 mg only for pain-free at one hour, and 8 mg significantly better than 6 mg only for headache relief at one hour. There was no evidence of increased migraine relief if a second dose of sumatriptan 6 mg was given after an inadequate response to the first.Relief of headache-associated symptoms, including nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia, was greater with sumatriptan than with placebo, and use of rescue medication was lower with sumatriptan than placebo. For the most part, adverse events were transient and mild and were more common with sumatriptan than placebo.Sumatriptan was compared directly with a number of active treatments, including other triptans, acetylsalicylic acid plus metoclopramide, and dihydroergotamine, but there were insufficient data for any pooled analyses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Subcutaneous sumatriptan is effective as an abortive treatment for acute migraine attacks, quickly relieving pain, nausea, photophobia, phonophobia, and functional disability, but is associated with increased adverse events.

Diclofenac with or without an antiemetic for acute migraine headaches in adults

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a common, disabling condition and a burden for the individual, health services and society. Many sufferers choose not to, or are unable to, seek professional help and rely on over-the-counter (OTC) analgesics. Diclofenac is an established analgesic, and new formulations using the potassium or epolamine salts, which can be dissolved in water, have been developed for rapid absorption, which may be beneficial in acute migraine. Co-therapy with an antiemetic should help to reduce the nausea and vomiting commonly associated with migraine.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and tolerability of diclofenac, alone or in combination with an antiemetic, compared to placebo and other active interventions in the treatment of acute migraine headaches in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Oxford Pain Relief Database, ClinicalTrials.gov, and reference lists for studies through 27 September 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, placebo- and/or active-controlled studies using self administered diclofenac to treat a migraine headache episode, with at least 10 participants per treatment arm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We used numbers of participants achieving each outcome to calculate relative risk (or 'risk ratio') and numbers needed to treat to benefit (NNT) or harm (NNH) compared to placebo or a different active treatment.

MAIN RESULTS

Five studies (1356 participants) compared oral diclofenac with placebo, and one also compared it with sumatriptan; none combined diclofenac with a self administered antiemetic. Four studies treated attacks with single doses of medication, and two allowed an optional second dose for inadequate response. Only two studies, with three active treatment arms, provided data for pooled analysis of primary outcomes. For single doses of diclofenac potassium 50 mg versus placebo (two studies), the NNTs were 6.2, 8.9, and 9.5 for pain-free at two hours, headache relief at two hours, and pain-free responses at 24 hours, respectively.Associated symptoms of nausea, photophobia and phonophobia, and functional disability were reduced within two hours, and similar numbers of participants experienced adverse events, which were mostly mild and transient.There were insufficient data to evaluate other doses of oral diclofenac, or to compare different formulations or different dosing regimens; only one study compared oral diclofenac with an active comparator (oral sumatriptan 100 mg).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Oral diclofenac potassium 50 mg is an effective treatment for acute migraine, providing relief from pain and associated symptoms, although only a minority of patients experience pain-free responses. Adverse events are mostly mild and transient and occur at the same rate as with placebo.

Sumatriptan (oral route of administration) for acute migraine attacks in adults

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a highly disabling condition for the individual and also has wide-reaching implications for society, healthcare services, and the economy. Sumatriptan is an abortive medication for migraine attacks, belonging to the triptan family.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and tolerability of oral sumatriptan compared to placebo and other active interventions in the treatment of acute migraine attacks in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, online databases, and reference lists for studies through 13 October 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, placebo- and/or active-controlled studies using oral sumatriptan to treat a migraine headache episode, with at least 10 participants per treatment arm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We used numbers of participants achieving each outcome to calculate relative risk (or 'risk ratio') and numbers needed to treat to benefit (NNT) or harm (NNH) compared to placebo or a different active treatment.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixty-one studies (37,250 participants) compared oral sumatriptan with placebo or an active comparator. Most of the data were for the 50 mg and 100 mg doses. Sumatriptan surpassed placebo for all efficacy outcomes. For sumatriptan 50 mg versus placebo the NNTs were 6.1, 7.5, and 4.0 for pain-free at two hours and headache relief at one and two hours, respectively. NNTs for sustained pain-free and sustained headache relief during the 24 hours postdose were 9.5 and 6.0, respectively. For sumatriptan 100 mg versus placebo the NNTs were 4.7, 6.8, 3.5, 6.5, and 5.2, respectively, for the same outcomes. Results for the 25 mg dose were similar to the 50 mg dose, while sumatriptan 100 mg was significantly better than 50 mg for pain-free and headache relief at two hours, and for sustained pain-free during 24 hours. Treating early, during the mild pain phase, gave significantly better NNTs for pain-free at two hours and sustained pain-free during 24 hours than did treating established attacks with moderate or severe pain intensity.Relief of associated symptoms, including nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia, was greater with sumatriptan than with placebo, and use of rescue medication was lower with sumatriptan than with placebo. For the most part, adverse events were transient and mild and were more common with the sumatriptan than with placebo, with a clear dose response relationship (25 mg to 100 mg).Sumatriptan was compared directly with a number of active treatments, including other triptans, paracetamol (acetaminophen), acetylsalicylic acid, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and ergotamine combinations.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Oral sumatriptan is effective as an abortive treatment for migraine attacks, relieving pain, nausea, photophobia, phonophobia, and functional disability, but is associated with increased adverse events.

Sumatriptan (intranasal route of administration) for acute migraine attacks in adults

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a highly disabling condition for the individual and also has wide-reaching implications for society, healthcare services, and the economy. Sumatriptan is an abortive medication for migraine attacks, belonging to the triptan family. Intranasal administration may be preferable to oral for individuals experiencing nausea and/or vomiting, although it is primarily absorbed in the gut, not the nasal mucosa.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and tolerability of intranasal sumatriptan compared to placebo and other active interventions in the treatment of acute migraine attacks in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, online databases, and reference lists for studies through 13 October 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, placebo- and/or active-controlled studies using intranasal sumatriptan to treat a migraine headache episode, with at least 10 participants per treatment arm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We used numbers of participants achieving each outcome to calculate relative risk (or 'risk ratio') and numbers needed to treat to benefit (NNT) or harm (NNH) compared to placebo or a different active treatment.

MAIN RESULTS

Twelve studies (4755 participants) compared intranasal sumatriptan with placebo or an active comparator. Most of the data were for the 10 mg and 20 mg doses. Sumatriptan surpassed placebo for all efficacy outcomes. For sumatriptan 10 mg versus placebo the NNTs were 7.3, 7.4, and 5.5 for pain-free at two hours, and headache relief at one and two hours, respectively. For sumatriptan 20 mg versus placebo the NNTs were 4.7, 4.9, and 3.5, respectively, for the same outcomes. The 20 mg dose was significantly better than the 10 mg dose for each of these three primary efficacy outcomes.Relief of headache-associated symptoms, including nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia, was greater with sumatriptan than with placebo, and use of rescue medication was lower with sumatriptan than placebo. For the most part, adverse events were transient and mild and were more common with sumatriptan than placebo.Direct comparison of sumatriptan with active treatments was limited to two studies, one comparing sumatriptan 20 mg and dihydroergotamine (DHE) 1 mg, and one comparing sumatriptan 20 mg with rizatriptan 10 mg.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Intranasal sumatriptan is effective as an abortive treatment for acute migraine attacks, relieving pain, nausea, photophobia, phonophobia, and functional disability, but is associated with increased adverse events compared with placebo.

A randomized control trial: the effect of guided imagery with tape and perceived happy memory on chronic tension type headache

PURPOSE

To determine the effects of guided imagery techniques with tape and perceived happy memory on people with chronic tension-type headache (CTTH).

METHODS

Sixty people with CTTH completed the demographic questionnaire and headache diary 1 week before the treatment, that is, for 3 weeks during the treatment and 1 week immediately after that. The people were randomly assigned into one of three different treatment groups: a Guided imagery (GI) with tape group (n = 20), a GI with perceived happy memory group (n = 20) and a control group (n = 20). In addition to individualized headache therapy, subjects listened to a guided imagery audiocassette tape or imagined the happiest personal memory three times per week for 3 weeks. It should be noted that 20 control subjects received individualized therapy without guided imagery.

RESULTS

The guided imagery groups both tape and perceived happy memory had significantly more improvement than the controls in three of the outcome measures; headache intensity, headache frequency and headache duration. There were no other significant differences between the guided imagery groups (tape and perceived happy memory) at any time point.

CONCLUSIONS

Guided imagery is an effective, available and affordable nonpharmacological therapy either with tape or with perceived happy memory for the management of the CTTH.

Paracetamol (acetaminophen) with or without an antiemetic for acute migraine headaches in adults

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a common, disabling condition and a burden for the individual, health services and society. Many sufferers choose not to, or are unable to, seek professional help and rely on over-the-counter analgesics. Co-therapy with an antiemetic should help to reduce nausea and vomiting commonly associated with migraine.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and tolerability of paracetamol (acetaminophen), alone or in combination with an antiemetic, compared to placebo and other active interventions in the treatment of acute migraine in adults.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Oxford Pain Relief Database for studies through 4 October 2010.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, placebo- or active-controlled studies using self-administered paracetamol to treat a migraine headache episode, with at least 10 participants per treatment arm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Numbers of participants achieving each outcome were used to calculate relative risk and numbers needed to treat (NNT) or harm (NNH) compared to placebo or other active treatment.

MAIN RESULTS

Ten studies (2769 participants, 4062 attacks) compared paracetamol 1000 mg, alone or in combination with an antiemetic, with placebo or other active comparators, mainly sumatriptan 100 mg. For all efficacy outcomes paracetamol was superior to placebo, with NNTs of 12, 5.2 and 5.0 for 2-hour pain-free and 1- and 2-hour headache relief, respectively, when medication was taken for moderate to severe pain. Nausea, photophobia and phonophobia were reduced more with paracetamol than with placebo at 2 hours (NNTs of 7 to 11); more individuals were free of any functional disability at 2 hours with paracetamol (NNT 10); and fewer participants needed rescue medication over 6 hours (NNT 6).Paracetamol 1000 mg plus metoclopramide 10 mg was not significantly different from oral sumatriptan 100 mg for 2-hour headache relief; there were no 2-hour pain-free data. There was no significant difference between the paracetamol plus metoclopramide combination and sumatriptan for relief of "light/noise sensitivity" at 2 hours, but slightly more individuals needed rescue medication over 24 hours with the combination therapy (NNT 17).Adverse event rates were similar between paracetamol and placebo, and between paracetamol plus metoclopramide and sumatriptan. No serious adverse events occurred with paracetamol alone, but more "major" adverse events occurred with sumatriptan than with the combination therapy (NNH 32).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Paracetamol 1000 mg alone is an effective treatment for acute migraine headaches, and the addition of 10 mg metoclopramide gives short-term efficacy equivalent to oral sumatriptan 100 mg. Adverse events with paracetamol did not differ from placebo; "major" adverse events were slightly more common with sumatriptan than with paracetamol plus metoclopramide.

Ibuprofen with or without an antiemetic for acute migraine headaches in adults

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a common, disabling condition and a burden for the individual, health services and society. Many sufferers do not seek professional help, relying instead on over-the-counter analgesics. Co-therapy with an antiemetic should help to reduce symptoms commonly associated with migraine headaches.

OBJECTIVES

To determine efficacy and tolerability of ibuprofen, alone or in combination with an antiemetic, compared to placebo and other active interventions in the treatment of acute migraine headaches in adults.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Oxford Pain Relief Database for studies through 22 April 2010.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, placebo- or active-controlled studies using self-administered ibuprofen to treat a migraine headache episode, with at least 10 participants per treatment arm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Numbers of participants achieving each outcome were used to calculate relative risk and number needed to treat (NNT) or harm (NNH) compared to placebo or other active treatment.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine studies (4373 participants, 5223 attacks) compared ibuprofen with placebo or other active comparators; none combined ibuprofen with a self-administered antiemetic. All studies treated attacks with single doses of medication. For ibuprofen 400 mg versus placebo, NNTs for 2-hour pain-free (26% versus 12% with placebo), 2-hour headache relief (57% versus 25%) and 24-hour sustained headache relief (45% versus 19%) were 7.2, 3.2 and 4.0, respectively. For ibuprofen 200 mg versus placebo, NNTs for 2-hour pain-free (20% versus 10%) and 2-hour headache relief (52% versus 37%) were 9.7 and 6.3, respectively. The higher dose was significantly better for 2-hour headache relief than the lower dose. Soluble formulations of ibuprofen 400 mg were better than standard tablets for 1-hour, but not 2-hour headache relief.Associated symptoms of nausea, vomiting, photophobia and phonophobia and functional disability were reduced within 2 hours, and fewer participants used rescue medication with ibuprofen compared with placebo. Similar numbers of participants experienced adverse events, which were mostly mild and transient.Ibuprofen 400 mg did not differ from rofecoxib 25 mg for 2-hour headache relief, 24-hour headache relief or use of rescue medication.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Ibuprofen is an effective treatment for acute migraine headaches, providing pain relief in about half of sufferers, but complete relief from pain and associated symptoms for only a minority. NNTs for all efficacy outcomes were better with 400 mg than 200 mg in comparisons with placebo, and soluble formulations provided more rapid relief. Adverse events were mostly mild and transient, occurring at the same rate as with placebo.

Health-related quality of life, disability and severity of disease in patients with migraine attending to a specialty headache center

BACKGROUND

The impact of migraine on patients' daily life has been evaluated in several studies. The relationship between disability and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with migraine, however, has not been systematically evaluated.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the impact of migraine on patients' HRQoL and disability patterns and to describe the relationship between disability and HRQoL in patients with migraine attending a specialty Italian headache center according to the biopsychosocial model of disability endorsed by the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health.

METHODS

In this observational study, adult patients with migraine were consecutively recruited. Disability was measured with the MIDAS (Migraine Disability Assessment) and the WHO-DAS II (World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule), HRQoL with the SF-36 (Medical Outcome Survey 36-item Short-Form Health Survey). Spearman's rank correlation between MIDAS score, SF-36 and WHO-DAS II scales was performed to evaluate the relationships between quality of life and disability. The impact of migraine on disability and HRQoL was assessed by comparing WHO-DAS II and SF-36 scores against Italian normative values, and by evaluating the different disability and HRQoL profiles in patients with different severity of migraine, defined according to migraine frequency and pain intensity.

RESULTS

A total of 102 patients with migraine (87 females) were enrolled. Mild to moderate correlations were reported between WHO-DAS II and SF-36's PCS (r = -0.67, P < .01) and MCS (r = -0.36, P < .05) scales; MIDAS score correlations to SF-36's PCS (r = -0.44, P < .01) and MCS (not significant) were lower than WHO-DAS II summary score. The correlation between MIDAS score and the WHO-DAS II summary score was mild (r = -0.36, P < .05). The majority of HRQoL and disability scales (with the exception of SF-36's Physical Functioning, and WHO-DAS II Getting along with people scales) scored significantly lower than normative values. A trend towards worsening of both HRQoL and disability, consistent with increasing migraine severity, was reported (Mann-Whitney's U = 119.5 for MIDAS; U= 113.0 for WHO-DAS II summary score, both with P < .01; U = 152.9 for PCS; U = 171.0 for MCS, both with P< .05)

CONCLUSIONS

In migraineurs attending an Italian specialty headache clinic, disability scores were worse and HRQoL scores lower than those of the general population, and worsened consistently with increased migraine severity. Measures of HRQoL and disability evaluate different psychosocial aspects of migraine and researchers should continue to employ them in public health and clinical research on migraine. They provide information on a poorly recognized part of migraine's burden, where economic impact is minimal but there are important effects on patients' daily lives in terms of interpersonal relationships, perceived quality of life and emotional status.

Patient outcome in migraine prophylaxis: the role of psychopharmacological agents

INTRODUCTION

Migraine is a serious illness that needs correct treatment for acute attacks and, in addition, a treatment prophylaxis, since patients with migraine suffer during acute attacks and also between attacks.

METHODS

A systematic review of the most relevant clinical trials of migraine headache and its epidemiology, pathophysiology, comorbidity, and prophylactic treatment (medical and nonmedical) was carried out using "Medline" and "PsychINFO" from 1973 to 2009. Approximately 110 trials met our inclusion criteria and were included in the current review.

RESULTS

The most effective pharmacological treatment for migraine prophylaxis is propranolol and anticonvulsants such as topiramate, valproic acid, and amitriptyline. Nonmedical treatments such as acupuncture, biofeedback, and melatonin have also been proposed. Peripheral neurostimulation has been suggested for the treatment of chronic daily headache that does not respond to prophylaxis and for the treatment of drug-resistant primary headache. The majority of the pharmacological agents available today have limited efficacy and may cause adverse effects incompatible with long-term use.

LIMITATIONS

The review was limited by the highly variable and often insufficient reporting of the complex outcome data and by the fact that migraine prophylaxis trials typically use headache diaries to monitor the course of the disease. The results of the different studies were also presented in different ways, making comparison of the results difficult.

DISCUSSION

An adequate prophylaxis is crucial in reducing disability and preventing the evolution of the problem into a chronic progressive illness. The implications of the present findings were discussed.

Disability, HRQoL and resource use among chronic and episodic migraineurs: results from the International Burden of Migraine Study (IBMS)

BACKGROUND

Migraine imposes significant burden on patients, their families and health care systems. In this study, we compared episodic to chronic migraine sufferers to determine if migraine status predicted headache-related disability, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and health care resource utilization.

METHODS

A Web-based survey was administered to panelists from nine countries. Participants were classified as having chronic migraine (CM), episodic migraine (EM) or neither using a validated questionnaire. Data collected and then analyzed included sociodemographics, clinical characteristics, Migraine Disability Assessment, Migraine-Specific Quality of Life v2.1, Patient Health Questionnaire and health care resource utilization.

FINDINGS

Of the respondents, 5.7% had CM and 94.3% had EM, with CM patients reporting significantly more severe disability, lower HRQoL, higher levels of anxiety and depression and greater health care resource utilization compared to those with EM.

INTERPRETATION

These results provide evidence that will enhance our understanding of the factors driving health care costs and will contribute to development of cost-effective health care strategies.

Aspirin with or without an antiemetic for acute migraine headaches in adults

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a common, disabling condition and a burden for the individual, health services and society. Many sufferers choose not to, or are unable to, seek professional help and rely on over-the-counter analgesics. Co-therapy with an antiemetic should help to reduce nausea and vomiting commonly associated with migraine headaches.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and tolerability of aspirin, alone or in combination with an antiemetic, compared to placebo and other active interventions in the treatment of acute migraine headaches in adults.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Oxford Pain Relief Database for studies through 10 March 2010.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, placebo- or active-controlled studies using aspirin to treat a discrete migraine headache episode, with at least 10 participants per treatment arm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Numbers of participants achieving each outcome were used to calculate relative risk and numbers needed to treat (NNT) or harm (NNH) compared to placebo or other active treatment.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirteen studies (4222 participants) compared aspirin 900 mg or 1000 mg, alone or in combination with metoclopramide 10 mg, with placebo or other active comparators, mainly sumatriptan 50 mg or 100 mg. For all efficacy outcomes, all active treatments were superior to placebo, with NNTs of 8.1, 4.9 and 6.6 for 2-hour pain-free, 2-hour headache relief, and 24-hour headache relief with aspirin alone versus placebo, and 8.8, 3.3 and 6.2 with aspirin plus metoclopramide versus placebo. Sumatriptan 50 mg did not differ from aspirin alone for 2-hour pain-free and headache relief, while sumatriptan 100 mg was better than the combination of aspirin plus metoclopramide for 2-hour pain-free, but not headache relief; there were no data for 24-hour headache relief.Associated symptoms of nausea, vomiting, photophobia and phonophobia were reduced with aspirin compared with placebo, with additional metoclopramide significantly reducing nausea (P < 0.00006) and vomiting (P = 0.002) compared with aspirin alone.Fewer participants needed rescue medication with aspirin than with placebo. Adverse events were mostly mild and transient, occurring slightly more often with aspirin than placebo.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Aspirin 1000 mg is an effective treatment for acute migraine headaches, similar to sumatriptan 50 mg or 100 mg. Addition of metoclopramide 10 mg improves relief of nausea and vomiting. Adverse events were mainly mild and transient, and were slightly more common with aspirin than placebo, but less common than with sumatriptan 100 mg.

Quality of life in adolescents with headache: Results from a population-based survey

The aim of the investigation was to study the impact of headache on quality of life (QOL) in adolescents in a population-based sample ( N = 1047, aged between 13 and 17 years). QOL was assessed using the KINDL-R (Revidierter Kinder Lebensqualitätsfragebogen) questionnaire with its six dimensions. In order to assess potential differences in the impact on QOL according to the type of headache, a stratified analysis was performed. QOL differences compared to the ‘no headache’ group are presented with adjustment for socio-demographic confounders. Headache at least once per month was reported in 48% of the adolescents and accounted for a small but significant reduction of 2.5 points in the total KINDL-R score, which was mainly caused by a reduction in physical wellbeing by 6.8 points. Adolescents with migraine reported higher reductions in physical wellbeing and total QOL than subjects with tension-type headache (TTH). The size of the reduction in QOL scores was small but similar to that observed for other chronic conditions in adolescents. Headache prevention programs might therefore have an impact on QOL in adolescents.

Sumatriptan plus naproxen for acute migraine headaches in adults

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: The objective of the review will be to determine the efficacy and tolerability of sumatriptan plus naproxen, administered together as separate agents or taken as a fixed-dose combination tablet, compared to placebo and other active interventions in the treatment of acute migraine headaches in adults.

Zolmitriptan for acute migraine headaches in adults

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: The objective of the review will be to determine the efficacy and tolerability of zolmitriptan compared to placebo and other active interventions in the treatment of acute migraine headaches in adults.

Rizatriptan for acute migraine headaches in adults

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: The objective of the review will be to determine the efficacy and tolerability of rizatriptan compared to placebo and other active interventions in the treatment of acute migraine headaches in adults.