Identifying menstrual migraine- improving the diagnostic criteria using a statistical method

A scoping review of hormonal clinical trials in menstrual cycle-related brain disorders: Studies in premenstrual mood disorder, menstrual migraine, and catamenial epilepsy

Cyclic variations in hormones during the normal menstrual cycle underlie multiple central nervous system (CNS)-linked disorders, including premenstrual mood disorder (PMD), menstrual migraine (MM), and catamenial epilepsy (CE). Despite this foundational mechanistic link, these three fields operate independently of each other. In this scoping review (N = 85 studies), we survey existing human research studies in PMD, MM, and CE to outline the exogenous experimental hormone manipulation trials conducted in these fields. We examine a broad range of literature across these disorders in order to summarize existing diagnostic practices and research methods, highlight gaps in the experimental human literature, and elucidate future research opportunities within each field. While no individual treatment or study design can fit every disease, there is immense overlap in study design and established neuroendocrine-based hormone sensitivity among the menstrual cycle-related disorders PMD, MM, and CE.

SCOPING REVIEW STRUCTURED SUMMARY

Background. The menstrual cycle can be a biological trigger of symptoms in certain brain disorders, leading to specific, menstrual cycle-linked phenomena such as premenstrual mood disorders (PMD), menstrual migraine (MM), and catamenial epilepsy (CE). Despite the overlap in chronicity and hormonal provocation, these fields have historically operated independently, without any systematic communication about methods or mechanisms.

OBJECTIVE

Online databases were used to identify articles published between 1950 and 2021 that studied hormonal manipulations in reproductive-aged females with either PMD, MM, or CE. We selected N = 85 studies that met the following criteria: 1) included a study population of females with natural menstrual cycles (e.g., not perimenopausal, pregnant, or using hormonal medications that were not the primary study variable); 2) involved an exogenous hormone manipulation; 3) involved a repeated measurement across at least two cycle phases as the primary outcome variable.

CHARTING METHODS

After exporting online database query results, authors extracted sample size, clinical diagnosis of sample population, study design, experimental hormone manipulation, cyclical outcome measure, and results from each trial. Charting was completed manually, with two authors reviewing each trial.

RESULTS

Exogenous hormone manipulations have been tested as treatment options for PMD (N = 56 trials) more frequently than MM (N = 21) or CE (N = 8). Combined oral contraceptive (COC) trials, specifically those containing drospirenone as the progestin, are a well-studied area with promising results for treating both PMDD and MM. We found no trials of COCs in CE. Many trials test ovulation suppression using gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists (GnRHa), and a meta-analysis supports their efficacy in PMD; GnRHa have been tested in two MM-related trials, and one CE open-label case series. Finally, we found that non-contraceptive hormone manipulations, including but not limited to short-term transdermal estradiol, progesterone supplementation, and progesterone antagonism, have been used across all three disorders.

CONCLUSIONS

Research in PMD, MM, and CE commonly have overlapping study design and research methods, and similar effects of some interventions suggest the possibility of overlapping mechanisms contributing to their cyclical symptom presentation. Our scoping review is the first to summarize existing clinical trials in these three brain disorders, specifically focusing on hormonal treatment trials. We find that PMD has a stronger body of literature for ovulation-suppressing COC and GnRHa trials; the field of MM consists of extensive estrogen-based studies; and current consensus in CE focuses on progesterone supplementation during the luteal phase, with limited estrogen manipulations due to concerns about seizure provocation. We argue that researchers in any of these respective disciplines would benefit from greater communication regarding methods for assessment, diagnosis, subtyping, and experimental manipulation. With this scoping review, we hope to increase collaboration and communication among researchers to ultimately improve diagnosis and treatment for menstrual-cycle-linked brain disorders.

Comparative efficacy of different treatments for menstrual migraine: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Menstrual migraine is a subtype of migraine disease that is typically more disabling, longer-lasting, and more challenging to treat. The purpose of this network meta-analysis (NMA) is to compare the relative efficacy of treatments for menstrual migraine.

METHODS

We systematically searched databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane, and included all eligible randomized controlled trials in the study. We conducted the statistical analysis using Stata version 14.0, based on the frequentist framework. We used the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized trials version 2 (RoB2) to assess the risk of bias of the included studies.

RESULTS

This network meta-analysis included 14 randomized controlled trials with 4601 patients. For short-term prophylaxis, frovatriptan 2.5 mg twice daily had the highest probability of effectiveness [OR = 1.87 (95% CI: 1.48 to 2.38)] compared to placebo. For acute treatment, the results showed that sumatriptan 100 mg [OR = 4.32 (95% CI: 2.95 to 6.34)] was the most effective treatment compared to placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that frovatriptan 2.5 mg twice daily was best for short-term prevention, sumatriptan 100 mg were best for acute treatment. More high-quality randomized trials are required to determine the most effective treatment.

Population-Based Characterization of Menstrual Migraine and Proposed Diagnostic Criteria

Importance

There is a need for better recognition and more extensive research into menstrual migraine (MM) in the general population, and a revision of the diagnostic criteria for MM is warranted to move the field forward. Increased understanding of MM is crucial for improving clinical care, diagnosis, and therapy for MM.

Objectives

To assess the clinical characteristics of MM, including severity and treatment response, and to propose new diagnostic criteria for pure MM and menstrually related migraine.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This is a case-control study of Danish individuals with migraine. All individuals completed a 105-item validated diagnostic migraine questionnaire, sent via the Danish electronic mailing system (e-Boks) between May and August 2020, allowing diagnosis of pure MM and menstrually related migraine by the International Classification of Headache Disorders, Third Edition (ICHD-3). Data analysis was performed from September 2021 to November 2022.

Exposure

Diagnosis of migraine.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Clinical characteristics of women with MM and women with nonmenstrual migraine (non-MM) were compared using the ICHD-3 diagnostic criteria. A simulation of the risk of randomly misclassifying MM was based on number of migraine attacks during 3 menstrual cycles (3 × 28 days), and simulation analyses were performed using 100 000 permutations of random migraine attacks in migraine patients.

Results

A total of 12 618 individuals, including 9184 women, with migraine participated in the study. Among the women with migraine, the prevalence of MM was 16.6% (1532 women), and the prevalence of non-MM was 45.9% (4216 women). The mean (SD) age was 38.7 (8.7) years for women with MM and 37.0 (9.2) years for women with non-MM. Of the 1532 women with MM, 410 (26.8%) fulfilled ICHD-3 diagnostic criteria for pure MM, 1037 (67.7%) fulfilled ICHD-3 diagnostic criteria for menstrually related migraine, and 152 (9.9%) fulfilled proposed diagnostic criteria for rare pure MM. MM was associated with a higher frequency of migraine-accompanying symptoms (odds ratio [OR], 1.98; 95% CI, 1.71-2.29), more frequent (OR, 7.21; 95% CI, 5.77-9.03) and more severe (OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.13-1.21) migraine attacks, lower frequency of nonmigraine headache (OR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.18-0.49), an overall greater response to treatment with triptans (OR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.24-2.24), better improvement of migraine attacks during late pregnancy (OR, 5.10; 95% CI, 2.17-14.00), and faster reappearance of migraine attacks post partum (OR, 3.19; 95% CI, 2.40-4.25). Hormonal contraceptive-related MM was associated with a higher prevalence of migraine without aura than migraine related to spontaneous menstruation (OR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.62-2.06). Otherwise, no differences between hormonal and spontaneous MM were observed. The risk of random diagnostic misclassification of ICHD-3 menstrually related migraine in women with high frequency episodic migraine was 43%. This risk was reduced to 3% when applying the proposed criteria for menstrually related migraine.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this case-control study, MM in the general population had clinical characteristics that were quantitively different from those of non-MM. Detailed descriptive data and suggested improved diagnostic criteria for pure MM and menstrually related migraine were provided.

Validation of diagnostic ICHD-3 criteria for menstrual migraine

Objective

To assess validity of ICHD-3 diagnostic criteria for menstrual migraine.

Methods

We performed a longitudinal E-diary study in premenopausal women with migraine. Menstrual migraine diagnosis was self-reported at baseline, and verified according to diary based ICHD-3 criteria and a previous proposed statistical model. Validity of self-reported menstrual migraine was compared to diary based diagnosis and statistical diagnosis. Test-retest reliability and concordance between both methods were determined. Clinical characteristics of perimenstrual and non-perimenstrual migraine attacks were compared in women with and without menstrual migraine.

Results

We included 607 women. Both women who did and women who did not self-report to suffer from menstrual migraine fulfilled ICHD-3 criteria in the E-diary in two thirds of cases. Pure menstrual migraine was extremely rare (<1%). Concordance between statistical and diary based diagnosis was minimal (κ = 0.28, 95% CI:0.23–0.33). Women diagnosed with menstrual migraine showed 37–50% longer attack duration and increased triptan intake (OR 1.19–1.22, p < 0.001) during perimenstrual attacks.

Conclusion

Self-reported menstrual migraine diagnosis has extremely poor accuracy. Two thirds of women suffer from menstrual migraine, independent of self-reports. Pure menstrual migraine is rare. Women with menstrual migraine have longer attack duration and increased triptan intake during perimenstrual attacks, in contrast to women without menstrual migraine. Prospective headache (E-)diaries are required for a menstrual migraine diagnosis, also in clinical practice.

Comparing Perimenstrual and Nonperimenstrual Migraine Attacks Using an e-Diary

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Endogenous and exogenous female sex hormones are considered important contributors to migraine pathophysiology. Previous studies have cautiously suggested that perimenstrual migraine attacks have a longer duration and are associated with higher disability compared to nonperimenstrual attacks, but they showed conflicting results on acute therapy efficacy, pain intensity, and associated symptoms. We compared perimenstrual and nonperimenstrual migraine attack characteristics and assessed premenstrual syndrome (PMS) in women with migraine.

METHODS

Women with migraine were invited to complete a headache e-diary. Characteristics of perimenstrual attacks and nonperimenstrual attacks were compared. The primary outcome was attack duration. Secondary outcomes were headache intensity, accompanying symptoms, acute medication intake, and pain coping. Mixed effects models were used to account for multiple attacks within patients. PMS was assessed in patients without hormonal contraceptives. Subgroup analyses were performed for women with menstrually related migraine (MRM) and nonmenstrually related migraine (non-MRM) and women with a natural menstrual cycle and women using hormonal contraceptives.

RESULTS

A representative group of 500 participants completed the e-diary for at least 1 month. Perimenstrual migraine attacks (n = 998) compared with nonperimenstrual attacks (n = 4097) were associated with longer duration (20.0 vs 16.1 hours, 95% confidence interval 0.2-0.4), higher recurrence risk (odds ratio [OR] 2.4 [2.0-2.9]), increased triptan intake (OR 1.2 [1.1-1.4]), higher headache intensity (OR 1.4 [1.2-1.7]), less pain coping (mean difference -0.2 [-0.3 to -0.1]), more pronounced photophobia (OR 1.3 [1.2-1.4]) and phonophobia (OR 1.2 [1.1-1.4]), and less aura (OR 0.8 [0.6-1.0]). In total, 396/500 women completed the diary for ≥3 consecutive menstrual cycles, of whom 56% (221/396) fulfilled MRM criteria. Differences in attack characteristics became more pronounced when focusing on women with MRM and women using hormonal contraceptives. Prevalence of PMS was not different for women with MRM compared to non-MRM (11% vs 15%).

DISCUSSION

The longer duration of perimenstrual migraine attacks in women (with MRM) is associated with higher recurrence risk and increased triptan use. This may increase the risk of medication overuse and emphasizes the need to develop female-specific prophylactic treatment.

Between and within-woman differences in the association between menstruation and migraine days

OBJECTIVE

To investigate between and within-woman differences in the association between menstruation and migraine days.

BACKGROUND

Prior diary studies have shown that at the population level, aggregating across individuals, the odds of migraine increase during the perimenstrual window (from day -2 to day +3, where +1 is the first day of bleeding). These studies have been neither long nor large enough to assess the association between migraine and menses from an individual perspective. Consequently, existing research on menstrual-related migraine has largely overlooked between and within-woman variation that is critical for progressing clinical understanding and practice.

METHODS

Intensive longitudinal data for the current study were collected in a digital platform (N1-Headache^® ) that tracks individual migraine-related factors daily. Participants for the current study were actively menstruating adult (18+ years old) women who used the platform. Two variables were of primary interest, migraine day (no/yes) and menstrual status (inside or outside the 5-day perimenstrual window).

RESULTS

The sample consisted of 203 women with a mean age of 35.6 (SD = 8.7) years. At baseline, the women reported an average of 30.6 (SD = 23.6) headache days over the last 3 months. Analyses were based on a total of 53,302 days (median of 150 per person), 18,520 of which were migraine days (median of 44 per person), and a total of 2,126 menstrual cycles (median of 7 per person). Results showed that the 5-day perimenstrual window was associated with a 34% increase in odds of a migraine day compared to other days (OR = 1.34, 95% CI: 1.23-1.45, p < 0.0001). Importantly, there was between and within-woman variability in the association between menses and migraine days (between-woman variability: p = 0.002; within-woman [between-cycles] variability: p < 0.0001). Exploration of these individual differences demonstrated that relationship between menses and migraine days varied more within-person across cycles than between women.

DISCUSSION

This study supports previous research and demonstrates that the odds of migraine days are elevated from day -2 to day +3 of the menstrual cycle. We also show that the effect of menses on migraine days varies more within-woman than between-women. This work provides an initial foundation for better understanding menstrual-related migraine from the perspective of the individual patient.

Sex differences in prevalence of migraine trigger factors: A cross-sectional study

AIM

To examine the effect of sex on migraine trigger factors.

METHODS

Prevalence of 11 frequently reported trigger factors was determined in a cross-sectional study among migraine patients from a validated migraine database (n = 5725 females and n = 1061 males). Female-to-male odds ratios were calculated for each trigger, using a logistic regression model with attack frequency and migraine subtype (with or without aura) as covariates. Additionally, the effect of sex on total number of triggers per individual was determined.

RESULTS

The top three most reported triggers in women were menstruation (78%), stress (77%), and bright light (69%). Men reported stress (69%), bright light (63%), and sleep deprivation (60%) most frequently as provoking factors. The following triggers were more often reported by women than men: Bright light (odds ratio 1.29 [95% CI 1.12-1.48]; p = 0.003), stress (1.47 [1.27-1.69]; p < 0.001), skipping a meal (1.24 [1.09-1.42]; p = 0.015), sleep deprivation (1.37 [1.20-1.57]; p < 0.001), high altitudes (1.70 [1.40-2.09]; p < 0.001), and weather changes (1.35 [1.18-1.55]; p < 0.001). Women reported more triggers than men, even when menstruation was disregarded (mean ± SD: 4.6 ± 2.3 and 4.3 ± 2.3; p < 0.001).Conclusion: Women report migraine trigger factors to be provocative of their attacks more frequently than men, which may be related to a lower migraine threshold due to sex hormonal changes.

Jealousy in women with migraine: a cross-sectional case-control study

BACKGROUND

Estrogen influences susceptibility to migraine attacks and it has been suggested to affect jealousy in romantic relationships in women. Therefore, we hypothesized that migraine women may be more jealous.

METHODS

Jealousy levels and hormonal status were determined based on a cross-sectional, web-based, questionnaire study among female migraine patients and controls. A random sample of participants was selected from a validated migraine database. Participants with a serious and intimate monogamous relationship were included (n = 498) and divided into the following subgroups: menstrual migraine (n = 167), non-menstrual migraine (n = 103), postmenopausal migraine (n = 117), and premenopausal (n = 57) and postmenopausal (n = 54) controls. The primary outcome was the difference in mean jealousy levels between patients with menstrual migraine, non-menstrual migraine and premenopausal controls. Results were analyzed with a generalized linear model adjusting for age, relationship duration and hormonal status (including oral contraceptive use). Additionally, the difference in jealousy levels between postmenopausal migraine patients and controls was assessed. Previous research was replicated by evaluating the effect of combined oral contraceptives on jealousy.

RESULTS

Jealousy levels were higher in menstrual migraine patients compared to controls (mean difference ± SE: 3.87 ± 1.09, p = 0.001), and non-menstrual migraine patients compared to controls (4.98 ± 1.18, p < 0.001). No difference in jealousy was found between postmenopausal migraine patients and controls (- 0.32 ± 1.24, p = 0.798). Women using combined oral contraceptives were more jealous compared to non-users with a regular menstrual cycle (2.32 ± 1.03, p = 0.025).

CONCLUSION

Young women with migraine are more jealous within a romantic partnership.

A Markov chain method for counting and modelling migraine attacks

To ensure reproducibility in research quantifying episodic migraine attacks, and identifying attack onset, a sound theoretical model of a migraine attack, paired with a uniform standard for counting them, is necessary. Many studies report on migraine frequencies—e.g. the fraction of migraine-days of the observed days—without paying attention to the number of discrete attacks. Furthermore, patients’ diaries frequently contain single, migraine-free days between migraine-days, and we argue here that such ‘migraine-locked days’ should routinely be interpreted as part of a single attack. We tested a simple Markov model of migraine attacks on headache diary data and estimated transition probabilities by mapping each day of each diary to a unique Markov state. We explored the validity of imputing migraine days on migraine-locked entries, and estimated the effect of imputation on observed migraine frequencies. Diaries from our patients demonstrated significant clustering of migraine days. The proposed Markov chain model was shown to approximate the progression of observed migraine attacks satisfactorily, and imputing on migraine-locked days was consistent with the conceptual model for the progression of migraine attacks. Hence, we provide an easy method for quantifying the number and duration of migraine attacks, enabling researchers to procure data of high inter-study validity.