Frequency, Demographics, Comorbidities, and Health Care Utilization by Veterans With Migraine: A VA Nationwide Cohort Study

Comparison of clinical pharmacist practitioners' headache care roles across clinical contexts within the Veterans Health Administration: Optimizing pharmacist integration

BACKGROUND

Studies show interdisciplinary treatment is highly effective for addressing chronic pain syndromes, including headache disorders. Increasingly, advanced practice pharmacists work collaboratively with physicians to apply their unique skills to enhance patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

This qualitative study aimed to elucidate the potential in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) for increased roles of clinical pharmacist practitioners (CPPs)-advanced practice pharmacists with a scope of practice-in collaborative, interdisciplinary headache care teams. Our research question was: How do CPPs integrate with interdisciplinary headache care teams in Headache Centers of Excellence (HCoE) and non-HCoE VHA facilities, and how can their roles be configured to optimize headache specialty care services?

METHODS

This cross-sectional qualitative study used purposive sampling to recruit CPPs providing headache care within HCoEs and in non-HCoE VHA facilities for virtual, recorded, individual interviews. Multi-stage qualitative data analysis entailed: team discussions; immersion/crystallization for close reading of transcripts to identify emerging patterns of HCoE/non-HCoE comparison of CPPs' experiences; team data sorting using spreadsheets; and further immersion into sorted data for final identification of comparisons and interpretation of the data.

RESULTS

A total of 15 CPPs involved in headache care were interviewed, with about half working in HCoEs and half in non-HCoE VHA facilities across the United States. CPPs' roles within and outside HCoEs have considerable overlap as both groups co-manage patients with headache with physicians. CPPs have independent and collaborative responsibilities as they extend headache specialists' services by providing direct patient care and referring to additional providers for headache treatment. When their roles differ within and outside HCoEs it is largely due to level of integration on interdisciplinary headache or pain teams. CPPs in HCoEs collaborate with headache neurologists and interdisciplinary teams; some outside HCoEs do as well, while others work with primary care. CPPs' weekly time dedicated specifically to headache tends to be greater in HCoEs. Nevertheless, most interviewees in both groups stated patient need exceeds CPP availability at their facilities for conducting detailed chart reviews, initial visits to understand the context of patients' headache, and scheduled follow-ups over time to monitor and adjust treatment. CPPs also consult with and educate physicians on headache pharmacy, particularly regarding appropriate use of non-formulary medications.

CONCLUSION

Findings from this study suggest that CPPs' roles in headache care are valuable to clinical colleagues and their patients and should be leveraged and expanded within HCoEs and non-HCoE VHA facilities. When substantively integrated into interdisciplinary headache care teams, CPPs offer unique knowledge, headache management and patient behavior change skills, extend headache specialists' services, and provide both patient and physician education. These combined responsibilities contribute to enhancing patient outcomes and facilitating ongoing access to high quality, evidence-based headache care.

Exploring the Causal Relationship Between Migraine and Insomnia Through Bidirectional Two-Sample Mendelian Randomization: A Bidirectional Causal Relationship

Introduction

The intricate relationship between migraine and insomnia has been a subject of great interest due to its complex mechanisms. Despite extensive research, understanding the causal link between these conditions remains a challenge.

Material and Methods

This study employs a bidirectional Mendelian randomization approach to investigate the causal relationship between migraine and insomnia. Risk loci for both conditions were derived from large-scale Genome-Wide Association Studies (GWAS). The primary method of Mendelian Randomization utilized in this study is the Inverse Variance Weighted (IVW) method.

Results

Our findings indicate a bidirectional causal relationship between migraine and insomnia. In the discovery set, migraine had a significant effect on insomnia (OR=1.02, 95% CI=1.02 (1.01-1.03), PIVW=5.30E-04). However, this effect was not confirmed in the validation set (OR=1.03, 95% CI=1.03 (0.87-1.21), PIVW=0.77). Insomnia also had a significant effect on migraine (OR=1.02, 95% CI=1.02 (0.01-1.03), PIVW=2.67E-08), and this effect was validated in the validation set (OR=2.30, 95% CI=2.30 (1.60-3.30), PIVW=5.78E-06).

Conclusion

This study provides meaningful insights into the bidirectional causality between migraine and insomnia, highlighting a complex interplay between these conditions. While our findings advance the understanding of the relationship between migraine and insomnia, they also open up new avenues for further research. The results underscore the need for considering both conditions in clinical and therapeutic strategies.

Migraine Prevalence, Environmental Risk, and Comorbidities in Men and Women Veterans

Importance

Migraine is a prevalent and debilitating condition that substantially impacts quality of life. Investigating migraine prevalence, associated comorbidities, and potential military service exposures in veterans, focusing on gender differences, is crucial for targeted interventions and management strategies.

Objective

To determine the prevalence of migraine, associated health comorbidities, and potential military service and environmental exposures among men and women US veterans using a large-scale epidemiological sample from the Million Veteran Program (MVP).

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study analyzed self-report survey data from the MVP, a large epidemiological sample of US veterans that was started in 2011 and has ongoing enrollment. Eligible participants were selected from the MVP database in 2023. The study included 491 604 veterans to examine migraine prevalence, health comorbidities, demographic characteristics, military service history, and environmental exposures. Data were analyzed from December 2022 to July 2023.

Exposures

Military service and environmental factors, such as chemical or biological warfare exposure, were considered.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was migraine prevalence among men and women veterans, assessed through self-reported diagnoses. Secondary outcomes included the association between migraine and health comorbidities, demographic characteristics, military service history, and environmental exposures.

Results

Of the 491 604 veterans included in this study, 450 625 (91.8%) were men and 40 979 (8.2%) were women. The lifetime prevalence of migraine was significantly higher in women (12 324 of 40 979 [30.1%]) than in men (36 816 of 450 625 [8.2%]). Migraine prevalence varied by race and ethnicity, with the highest prevalence in Hispanic or Latinx women (1213 of 3495 [34.7%]). Veterans with migraine reported worse general health, higher levels of pain, increased pain interference with work, a higher likelihood of psychiatric and neurological health conditions, and greater lifetime opioid use. Specific aspects of military service, including service post-September 2001 and deployment in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom, and environmental factors, including Agent Orange, chemical and biological welfare, and antinerve agent pills history, were significantly associated with migraine prevalence.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cross-sectional study of migraine, the results highlighted gender differences in migraine prevalence and associated health comorbidities among US veterans. The findings emphasized the need for interdisciplinary approaches to migraine management, increased awareness and education efforts, and population-based screening strategies, particularly for women and Hispanic veterans who are at greater risk. Our findings encourage further research into tailored interventions for specific subpopulations and the impact of military service and environmental exposures on migraine and related health conditions.

Trajectory of blood pressure after initiating anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide treatment of migraine: a target trial emulation from the veterans health administration

BACKGROUND

Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) is involved in migraine pathophysiology and blood pressure regulation. Although clinical trials have established the cardio-cerebrovascular safety profile of anti-CGRP treatment, limited high-quality real-world evidence exists on its long-term effects on blood pressure (BP). To address this gap, we examined the safety of anti-CGRP treatment on BP in patients with migraine headache in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA).

METHODS

We emulated a target trial of patients who initiated anti-CGRP treatment or topiramate for migraine prevention between May 17th, 2018 and February 28th, 2023. We calculated stabilized inverse probability weights to balance between groups and then used weighted linear mixed-effect models to estimate the systolic and diastolic BP changes over the study period. For patients without hypertension at baseline, we estimated the cumulative incidence of hypertension using Kaplan-Meier curve. We also used weight mixed-effect Poisson model to estimate the number of antihypertension medications for patients with hypertension at baseline.

RESULTS

This analysis included 69,589 patients and 554,437 blood pressure readings. of these, 18,880 patients received anti-CGRP treatment, and they were more likely to be women, have a chronic migraine diagnosis and higher healthcare utilization than those received topiramate. Among patients without hypertension at baseline, we found no significant differences in systolic BP changes over the four-year follow-up between anti-CGRP (slope [standard error, SE] = 0.48[0.06]) and topiramate treated patients (slope[SE] = 0.39[0.04]). The incidence of hypertension was similar for anti-CGRP and topiramate group (4.4 vs 4.3 per 100 person-years). Among patients with hypertension at baseline who initiated anti-CGRP treatment, we found a small but persistent effect on exacerbating hypertension during the first four years of treatment, as evidenced by a significant annual 3.7% increase in the number of antihypertensive medications prescribed (RR = 1.037, 95%CI 1.025-1.048).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that anti-CGRP treatment is safe regarding blood pressure in patients without hypertension. However, for those with baseline hypertension, anti-CGRP treatment resulted in a small but persistent increase in the number of antihypertensives, indicating an exacerbation of hypertension. Future studies are needed to evaluate the cardio-cerebrovascular safety of anti-CGRP treatment beyond the first four years.