Outcomes That Matter to Adolescents With Continuous Headache Due to Chronic Migraine and Their Parents: A Pilot Survey Study

Evaluating patient and family preferences for acute and preventive pediatric headache treatment

OBJECTIVE

To describe acute and preventive treatment preferences among youth with migraine and their parents/guardians, and to describe the degree of youth-parent/guardian preference agreement.

BACKGROUND

Headache disorders are common in youth, but little is known about patient and family preferences for headache treatments and outcomes.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional survey, a headache treatment preferences questionnaire was co-created with stakeholders, piloted, and distributed to consenting youth with migraine aged 9-18 years and parents/guardians at a tertiary care headache clinic in western Canada. Response data were summarized for youth and parents/guardians separately, and agreement rates within a youth-parent/guardian pair were compared to a hypothesized agreement rate of 80% for the primary questionnaire items.

RESULTS

Seventy-two youth and n = 94 parents/guardians participated, with n = 63 in youth-parent/guardian pairs. Freedom from pain and rapid relief, and reducing pain severity and headache frequency were top acute and preventive treatment priorities, respectively. More than 90% (69/72) agreed that ≥ 50% reduction in headache frequency was a good target. For both acute and preventive interventions, swallowed pill-based options were most often selected as the preferred first-line treatment, with neuromodulation selected as the preferred second-line treatment. The level of agreement within youth-parent/guardian pairs on preferred treatment modalities was lower than hypothesized for acute (63% [40/63], 95% confidence interval [CI] = 52-75%, χ2 = 10.73, p = 0.001) but not for preventive treatment (73% [46/63], 95% CI = 62-84%, χ2 = 1.92, p = 0.166). Regarding which treatment modalities were perceived as most effective, youth-parent agreement was lower than hypothesized for both acute (48% [30/63], 95% CI = 35-60%, χ2 = 41.29, p < 0.001) and preventive treatment (46% [29/63], 95% CI = 34-58%, χ2 = 45.43, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Youth and family preferences aligned qualitatively, but sometimes diverged quantitatively, from typical clinical trial outcomes. The level of agreement within youth-parent/guardian pairs on treatment preferences and perceptions was low. Clinicians should consider both perspectives as they may be divergent.

New Daily Persistent Headache

OBJECTIVE

This article describes the clinical features, etiology, differential diagnosis, management, and prognosis of new daily persistent headache.

LATEST DEVELOPMENTS

New daily persistent headache has attracted renewed attention as it may arise in the setting of a COVID-19 infection. Spontaneous intracranial hypotension, particularly from CSF-venous fistulas, remains an important secondary headache disorder to consider before diagnosing new daily persistent headache. Symptomatic treatment for new daily persistent headache may include acute and preventive therapies used for migraine and tension-type headache, such as triptans, oral preventive agents, onabotulinumtoxinA, and agents that target calcitonin gene-related peptide.

ESSENTIAL POINTS

New daily persistent headache is a daily headache syndrome that starts acutely and can only be diagnosed after 3 months have elapsed and other secondary and primary headache diagnoses have been excluded. The clinical manifestations largely resemble either chronic migraine or chronic tension-type headache. The underlying cause is unknown, but it is plausible that multiple etiologies exist and that it is not a single disease entity. The prognosis is variable but often poor, and the treatment approach is largely extrapolated from the management of chronic migraine and chronic tension-type headache.

Narrative Review of the Complex Interaction between Pain and Trauma in Children: A Focus on Biological Memory, Preclinical Data, and Epigenetic Processes

The incidence and collective impact of early adverse experiences, trauma, and pain continue to increase. This underscores the urgent need for translational efforts between clinical and preclinical research to better understand the underlying mechanisms and develop effective therapeutic approaches. As our understanding of these issues improves from studies in children and adolescents, we can create more precise preclinical models and ultimately translate our findings back to clinical practice. A multidisciplinary approach is essential for addressing the complex and wide-ranging effects of these experiences on individuals and society. This narrative review aims to (1) define pain and trauma experiences in childhood and adolescents, (2) discuss the relationship between pain and trauma, (3) consider the role of biological memory, (4) decipher the relationship between pain and trauma using preclinical data, and (5) examine the role of the environment by introducing the importance of epigenetic processes. The ultimate scope is to better understand the wide-ranging effects of trauma, abuse, and chronic pain on children and adolescents, how they occur, and how to prevent or mitigate their effects and develop effective treatment strategies that address both the underlying causes and the associated physiological and psychological effects.

Impact of preventive pill-based treatment on migraine days: A secondary outcome study of the Childhood and Adolescent Migraine Prevention (CHAMP) trial and a comparison of self-report to nosology-derived assessments

OBJECTIVE

To examine group differences in self-reported migraine days among youth who completed the Childhood and Adolescent Migraine Prevention (CHAMP) trial prior to its closure and explore the relationship between self-reported and "nosology-derived" (i.e., International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition [ICHD-3]) migraine days.

BACKGROUND

The CHAMP trial compared amitriptyline and topiramate to placebo for migraine prevention in youth and proposed to analyze change in migraine days as a secondary outcome. There is considerable variability in the field regarding what constitutes a "migraine day," how this is determined and reported in trials, and how consistent these measures are with diagnostic nosology.

METHODS

CHAMP trial completers (N = 175) were randomized to receive amitriptyline (n = 77), topiramate (n = 63), or placebo (n = 35). Participants maintained daily headache diaries where they reported each day with headache and if they considered that headache to be a migraine. For each headache day, participants completed a symptom record and reported about symptoms such as pain location(s) and presence of nausea/vomiting or photophobia and phonophobia. We examined group differences in self-reported migraine days at trial completion (summed from trial weeks 20-24) compared to baseline. We also used an algorithm to determine whether participants' symptom reports met ICHD-3 criteria for migraine without aura, and examined the association between self-reported and "nosology-derived" migraine days.

RESULTS

Results showed no significant differences between groups in self-reported migraine days over the course of the trial. Self-reported and "nosology-derived" migraine days during the baseline and treatment phases were strongly associated (r's = 0.73 and 0.83, respectively; p's < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Regardless of treatment, CHAMP trial completers showed clinically important reductions in self-reported migraine days over the course of the trial (about 3.8 days less). The strong association between self-reported and "nosology-derived" migraine days suggests youth with migraine can recognize a day with migraine and reliably report their headache features and symptoms. Greater rigor and transparency in the calculation and reporting of migraine days in trials is needed.