Search

Objective: To assess rates of traversing barriers to care to access optimal clinical outcomes in people with migraine internationally. Background: People in need of medical care for migraine should consult a health care professional knowledgeable in migraine management, obtain an accurate diagnosis, and receive an individualized treatment plan, which includes scientific society guideline-recommended treatments where appropriate. Methods: The Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes-International (CaMEO-I) Study was a cross-sectional, web-based survey conducted from July 2021 through March 2022 in Canada, France, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States (US). Respondents who met modified International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition, criteria for migraine and had Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS) scores of ≥ 6 (i.e., mild, moderate, or severe disability) were deemed to need medical care and were included in this analysis. Minimally effective treatment required that participants were currently consulting a health care professional for headache (barrier 1), reported an accurate diagnosis (barrier 2), and reported use of minimally appropriate pharmacologic treatment (barrier 3; based on American Headache Society 2021 Consensus Statement recommendations). Proportions of respondents who successfully traversed each barrier were calculated, and chi-square tests were used to assess overall difference among countries. Results: Among 14,492 respondents with migraine, 8,330 had MIDAS scores of ≥ 6, were deemed in need of medical care, and were included in this analysis. Current headache consultation was reported by 35.1% (2926/8330) of respondents. Compared with the US, consultation rates and diagnosis rates were statistically significantly lower in all other countries except France where they were statistically significantly higher. Total appropriate treatment rates were also statistically significantly lower in all other countries compared with the US except France, which did not differ from the US. All 3 barriers were traversed by only 11.5% (955/8330) of respondents, with differences among countries (P < 0.001). Conclusions: Of people with migraine in need of medical care for migraine, less than 15% traverse all 3 barriers to care. Although rates of consultation, diagnosis, and treatment differed among countries, improvements are needed in all countries studied to reduce the global burden of migraine. Trial registration: NA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Data are limited regarding the combined impact of headache frequency and failure of preventive medication (efficacy and/or tolerability) on the humanistic/economic burden of migraine. Methods: A retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of 2020 National Health and Wellness Survey (NHWS) data was conducted. An opt-in online survey identified adults in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and United Kingdom with self-reported physician-diagnosed migraine. Participants with ≥ 4 monthly headache days (MHDs) were stratified by prior preventive medication use/failure (preventive naive; 0–1 failure; ≥ 2 failures). Quality-of-life and economic outcomes were compared among groups using generalized linear modeling. Results: Among individuals with ≥ 4 MHDs (n = 1106), the NHWS identified 298 (27%) with ≥ 2 failures, 308 (28%) with 0–1 failure, and 500 (45%) as preventive naive. Individuals with ≥ 2 failures versus preventive-naive individuals had significantly lower scores on the 12-Item Short Form Survey Physical Component Summary (42.2 vs 44.1; P < 0.005), numerically higher scores on the Mental Component Summary (39.5 vs 38.5; P = 0.145), significantly higher scores on the Migraine Disability Assessment (39.1 vs 34.0; P < 0.05), and significantly higher prevalence of depression symptoms (62% vs 47%; P < 0.001) and anxiety symptoms (42% vs 31%; P < 0.01). The ≥ 2 failures group versus the preventive-naive group also had significantly more functional impairment as assessed by mean numbers of migraine-specific missed work days (7.8 vs 4.3) and household activities days (14.3 vs 10.6) in the past 6 months (P < 0.001) as well as the prevalence of absenteeism (19% vs 13%), overall work impairment (53% vs 42%), and activity impairment (53% vs 47%) (all P < 0.05). Emergency department visits (0.7 vs 0.5; P = 0.001) and hospitalizations (0.5 vs 0.3; P < 0.001) in the past 6 months were significantly higher in the ≥ 2 failures group versus the preventive-naive group, while indirect costs (€13,720 vs €11,282) and the proportion of individuals with non-adherence during the past 7 days (73% vs 64%) were numerically higher. Conclusions: Increased burden, quality-of-life impairment, and functional impairment exist among individuals with migraine experiencing ≥ 4 MHDs and more treatment failures. While cause and directionality cannot be determined, these results suggest the need for effective preventive migraine treatments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Headache is the predominant disabler in idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH). The aim was to characterise headache and investigate the association with intracranial pressure. Methods: IIH:WT was a randomised controlled parallel group multicentre trial in the United Kingdom investigating weight management methods in IIH. Participants with active IIH (evidenced by papilloedema) and a body mass index (BMI) ≥35 kg/m2 were recruited. At baseline, 12 months and 24 months headache characteristics and quality of life outcome measures were collected and lumbar puncture measurements were performed. Results: Sixty-six women with active IIH were included with a mean age of 32.0 years (SD ± 7.8), and mean body mass index of 43.9 ± 7.0 kg/m2. The headache phenotype was migraine-like in 90%. Headache severity correlated with ICP at baseline (r = 0.285; p = 0.024); change in headache severity and monthly headache days correlated with change in ICP at 12 months (r = 0.454, p = 0.001 and r = 0.419, p = 0.002 respectively). Cutaneous allodynia was significantly correlated with ICP at 12 months. (r = 0.479, p < 0.001). Boot strap analysis noted a positive association between ICP at 12 and 24 months and enabled prediction of both change in headache severity and monthly headache days. ICP was associated with significant improvements in quality of life (SF-36). Conclusions: We demonstrate a positive relationship between ICP and headache and cutaneous allodynia, which has not been previously reported in IIH. Those with the greatest reduction in ICP over 12 months had the greatest reduction in headache frequency and severity; this was associated with improvement of quality of life measures. Trial registration: This work provides Class IIa evidence of the association of raised intracranial pressure and headache. ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02124486. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The objective of this study was to define 'quality' of headache care, and develop indicators that are applicable in different settings and cultures and to all types of headache. No definition of quality of headache care has been formulated. Two sets of quality indicators, proposed in the US and UK, are limited to their localities and/or specific to migraine and their development received no input from people with headache. We first undertook a literature review. Then we conducted a series of focus-group consultations with key stakeholders (doctors, nurses and patients) in headache care. From the findings we proposed a large number of putative quality indicators, and refined these and reduced their number in consultations with larger international groups of stakeholder representatives. We formulated a definition of quality from the quality indicators. Five main themes were identified: (1) headache services; (2) health professionals; (3) patients; (4) financial resources; (5) political agenda and legislation. An initial list of 160 putative quality indicators in 14 domains was reduced to 30 indicators in 9 domains. These gave rise to the following multidimensional definition of quality of headache care: 'Good-quality headache care achieves accurate diagnosis and individualized management, has appropriate referral pathways, educates patients about their headaches and their management, is convenient and comfortable, satisfies patients, is efficient and equitable, assesses outcomes and is safe.' Quality in headache care is multidimensional and resides in nine essential domains that are of equal importance. The indicators are currently being tested for feasibility of use in clinical settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]