Search

In countries where headache services exist at all, their focus is usually on specialist (tertiary) care. This is clinically and economically inappropriate: most headache disorders can effectively and more efficiently (and at lower cost) be treated in educationally supported primary care. At the same time, compartmentalizing divisions between primary, secondary and tertiary care in many health-care systems create multiple inefficiencies, confronting patients attempting to navigate these levels (the "patient journey") with perplexing obstacles.High demand for headache care, estimated here in a needs-assessment exercise, is the biggest of the challenges to reform. It is also the principal reason why reform is necessary.The structured headache services model presented here by experts from all world regions on behalf of the Global Campaign against Headache is the suggested health-care solution to headache. It develops and refines previous proposals, responding to the challenge of high demand by basing headache services in primary care, with two supporting arguments. First, only primary care can deliver headache services equitably to the large numbers of people needing it. Second, with educational supports, they can do so effectively to most of these people. The model calls for vertical integration between care levels (primary, secondary and tertiary), and protection of the more advanced levels for the minority of patients who need them. At the same time, it is amenable to horizontal integration with other care services. It is adaptable according to the broader national or regional health services in which headache services should be embedded.It is, according to evidence and argument presented, an efficient and cost-effective model, but these are claims to be tested in formal economic analyses., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background Calcitonin gene-related peptide plays an important role in migraine pathophysiology. Erenumab, a human monoclonal antibody that inhibits the calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor, is being evaluated for migraine prevention. Methods In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study, 577 adults with episodic migraine were randomized to placebo or 70 mg erenumab; 570 patients were included in efficacy analyses. Primary endpoint was change in monthly migraine days. Secondary endpoints were ≥50% reduction in monthly migraine days, change in acute migraine-specific medication treatment days, and ≥5-point reduction in Physical Impairment and Impact on Everyday Activities domain scores measured by the Migraine Physical Function Impact Diary. All endpoints assessed change from baseline at month 3. Results Patients receiving erenumab experienced -2.9 days change in monthly migraine days, compared with -1.8 days for placebo, least-squares mean (95% CI) treatment difference of -1.0 (-1.6, -0.5) ( p < 0.001). A ≥ 50% reduction in monthly migraine days was achieved by 39.7% (erenumab) and 29.5% (placebo) of patients (OR:1.59 (95% CI: 1.12, 2.27) ( p = 0.010). Migraine-specific medication treatment days were reduced by -1.2 (erenumab) and -0.6 (placebo) days, a treatment difference of -0.6 (-1.0, -0.2) ( p = 0.002). The ≥5-point reduction rates in Migraine Physical Function Impact Diary - Physical Impairment were 33.0% and 27.1% (OR:1.33 (0.92, 1.90) ( p = 0.13) and in Migraine Physical Function Impact Diary - Everyday Activities were 40.4% and 35.8% (OR:1.22 (0.87, 1.71) ( p = 0.26). Safety and adverse event profiles of erenumab were similar to placebo. Most frequent adverse events were upper respiratory tract infection, injection site pain, and nasopharyngitis. Conclusions As a preventive treatment of episodic migraine, erenumab at a dosage of 70 mg monthly significantly reduced migraine frequency and acute migraine-specific medication use. (Funded by Amgen). Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02483585.

Background: The study was a collaboration between Lifting The Burden (LTB) and the European Headache Federation (EHF). Its aim was to evaluate the implementation of quality indicators for headache care Europe-wide in specialist headache centres (level-3 according to the EHF/LTB standard)., Methods: Employing previously-developed instruments in 14 such centres, we made enquiries, in each, of health-care providers (doctors, nurses, psychologists, physiotherapists) and 50 patients, and analysed the medical records of 50 other patients. Enquiries were in 9 domains: diagnostic accuracy, individualized management, referral pathways, patient's education and reassurance, convenience and comfort, patient's satisfaction, equity and efficiency of the headache care, outcome assessment and safety., Results: Our study showed that highly experienced headache centres treated their patients in general very well. The centres were content with their work and their patients were content with their treatment. Including disability and quality-of-life evaluations in clinical assessments, and protocols regarding safety, proved problematic: better standards for these are needed. Some centres had problems with follow-up: many specialised centres operated in one-touch systems, without possibility of controlling long-term management or the success of treatments dependent on this., Conclusions: This first Europe-wide quality study showed that the quality indicators were workable in specialist care. They demonstrated common trends, producing evidence of what is majority practice. They also uncovered deficits that might be remedied in order to improve quality. They offer the means of setting benchmarks against which service quality may be judged. The next step is to take the evaluation process into non-specialist care (EHF/LTB levels 1 and 2).

Background: Evaluation of the prevalence and impact of headache on the preceding day ("headache yesterday"; HY) is a new approach, allowing more precise estimation of headache-attributed burden without recall error. The aim of the study was to estimate the national burden attributable to headache disorders in Russia by applying measures of prevalence of HY and its impact on productivity and daily activities in the general population., Methods: We interviewed a representative population-based sample face-to-face by visiting randomly selected households throughout Russia. We randomly selected one adult aged 18-65 years from each. We followed a structured questionnaire including diagnostic questions, enquiry into occurrence of HY and various aspects of attributed burden., Results: Participation rate was 74.3%. One in seven participants (14.5%; men 9.1%: women 19.3%) reported HY. Approximately half of these had one of the subtypes of headache occurring on ≥15 days/month; the remainder had episodic migraine or tension-type headache almost equally. Mean duration of headache was 6.0 ± 4.4 hours. In 88.3% headache intensity was moderate or severe (mean 2.1 on a scale 1-3) and in 73.9% HY impaired daily activity. Loss of productivity at work due to headache totalled 2.6 million person-years/year, or 4.0% of workforce capacity. This estimate exceeded by 70% a previous estimate from the same survey based on recall over the preceding 3 months. There was greater impact on other daily activities., Conclusion: Recall-error-free estimation shows lost productivity every day due to headache in the Russian population is enormously high. Measures to redress these losses - effective structured health-care services supported by educational programmes - should be seen as a public-health priority while almost certainly being cost-saving.

Chronic cluster headache (CCH) often resists to prophylactic pharmaceutical treatments resulting in patients' life damage. In this rare but pragmatic situation escalation to invasive management is needed but framing criteria are lacking. We aimed to reach a consensus for refractory CCH definition for clinical and research use. The preparation of the final consensus followed three stages. Internal between authors, a larger between all European Headache Federation members and finally an international one among all investigators that have published clinical studies on cluster headache the last five years. Eighty-five investigators reached by email. Proposed criteria were in the format of the International Classification of Headache Disorders III-beta (description, criteria, notes, comments and references). Following this evaluation eight drafts were prepared before the final. Twenty-four (28.2%) international investigators commented during two rounds. Refractory CCH is described in the present consensus as a situation that fulfills the criteria of ICHD-3 beta for CCH with at least three severe attacks per week despite at least three consecutive trials of adequate preventive treatments. The condition is rare, but difficult to manage and invasive treatments may be needed. The consensus addresses five specific clinical and paraclinical diagnostic criteria followed by three notes and specific comments. Although refractory CCH may be not a separate identity these specific diagnostic criteria should help clinicians and investigators to improve patient's quality of life.

Background: As major causes of global public ill-health and disability, headache disorders are paradoxically ignored in health policy and in planning, resourcing and implementing health services. This is true worldwide. Russia, where the prevalence of headache disorders and levels of attributed disability are well in excess of the global and European averages, is no exception, while arcane diagnoses and treatment preferences are an aggravating factor. Urgent remedial action, with political support, is called for., Methods: Yekaterinburg, in Sverdlovsk Oblast, is the chosen centre for a demonstrational interventional project in Russia, undertaken within the Global Campaign against Headache. The initiative proposes three actions: 1) raise awareness of need for improvement; 2) design and implement a three-tier model (from primary care to a single highly specialized centre with academic affiliation) for efficient and equitable delivery of headache-related health care; 3) develop a range of educational initiatives aimed at primary-care physicians, non-specialist neurologists, pharmacists and the general public to support the second action., Results and Conclusion: We set these proposals in a context of a health-care needs assessment, and as a model for all Russia. We present and discuss early progress of the initiative, justify the investment of resources required for implementation and call for the political support that full implementation requires. The more that the Yekaterinburg headache initiative can achieve, the more likely it is that this support will be forthcoming.