Search

Background: Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) instruments have been developed to evaluate pain management in daily practice; the Patients' Global Impression of Change (PGIC) is particularly recommended by the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials. The prospective non-interventional multicenter PRO-QURE study aimed at assessing correlations between PGIC and pain measurements and treatment effects in patients followed in French pain centres., Methods: Respectively, 495 and 379 patients with peripheral neuropathic pain initiating treatment with capsaicin 8% cutaneous patch(es) (female, 62.6%; mean age, 54.0 ± 14.8 years; post-surgical or traumatic pain, 52.7%; mean pain duration, 42.2 ± 54.1 months; DN4 score >4, 92.9%) completed the PGIC and several other PRO instruments before (baseline) and 3 months (M3) after treatment application., Results: At M3, improvement ("much improved" or "very much improved") was observed in 23.0% of patients, associated with decreases of -3.0 ± 2.2, -2.5 ± 2.4, and -23.1 ± 19.7 in BPI pain intensity, BPI pain interference and NPSI total scores, respectively. The highest Spearman's rank correlation coefficients with PGIC were found for pain intensity (BPI: r = -0.479, p < 0.001), satisfaction with current state (Patient Acceptable Symptomatic State: r = 0.455, p < 0.001), and treatment effectiveness (TSQM: r = 0.431, p < 0.001); correlation coefficients were lower for all NPSI scores, BPI pain interference score, HAD scores and EQ-5D-3L index., Conclusions: In daily clinical practice, significant improvement in peripheral neuropathic pain, as assessed by PGIC scores, significantly correlated with changes in well-established measures of pain intensity, pain interference with activities of daily living, mood and quality of life, confirming its clinical interest as PRO measure in real-world conditions., Significance: Clinically important improvement in peripheral neuropathic pain, as assessed by PGIC scores, significantly correlated with well-established measures of pain intensity, pain interference in daily life and treatment efficacy. This result, associated with the ease of administration and scoring, encourages the widespread use of the PGIC in daily practice., (© 2019 European Pain Federation - EFIC®.)

Objective/background: This study aims to compare differences in pain beliefs according to headache type, chronic vs episodic migraine, in a large cohort of patients, using the Pain Beliefs and Perceptions Inventory (PBPI), and to identify possible predictive factors of the same pain beliefs., Methods: All patients referring for the first time at our center in 2011 were screened using PBPI and the Hamilton Anxiety and Depression Scale (a total of 1032 patients). PBPI is a 4-subscale questionnaire that explores a patient's personal beliefs on their subjective experience of pain. Headache patients also completed the Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) and a 30-day headache diary. For all participants, age, gender, duration of pain were collected. The sample was narrowed down to 899 as we experienced a nonresponse rate of 12.8%. For the purpose of this study, 2 groups were identified: chronic and episodic migraine, consisting of 116 and 126 patients, respectively, which were compared using Student's t-test; correlation analyses were conducted to investigate the relationship between variables before running a model selection based on Akaike's Information Criterion to identify possible predictive factors of different pain beliefs. Patients below 18 years of age and those diagnosed with other painful conditions were excluded from the analysis., Results: Beliefs from chronic and episodic migraine patients were very similar, with only a difference in beliefs related to constancy of pain (Mean value ± SD 0.5 ± 1.1 vs -0.6 ± 1.1, P<.001). Predictive factors were depression and HIT-6 scores for all PBPI subscales apart from Self-Blame, which showed a stronger relation to anxiety scores. Number of days with headache per month was correlated to higher constancy values. Diagnosis was a predictive factor for any particular belief., Discussion: This is the first study, to our knowledge, that addresses differences and predictive factors in pain beliefs according to headache diagnosis. A deeper knowledge of beliefs pattern in patients could lead to better-tailored psychological management., (© 2014 American Headache Society.)

Objectives: To evaluate the stability, responsiveness, and reproducibility of a simple visual analog scale (VAS)., Background: In order to help physicians in the management of migraine in everyday general practice and assess whether the treatments that they are currently prescribing are actually effective, a VAS of treatment satisfaction with acute migraine treatments has been developed., Methods: The study used an open-label, multicenter, prospective design. Adult patients fulfilling diagnostic criteria for migraine and who consulted a participating hospital or community neurology clinic were eligible. At inclusion, patients rated their satisfaction with their current treatment on the VAS. Those scoring 7-10 (satisfied) on the VAS were allocated to the VASCO cohort, and those scoring 0-4 (dissatisfied) were switched to almotriptan and allocated to the ALMO cohort. Patients scoring between 4 and 7 were assigned to 1 or other cohort at the physician's discretion. The VAS was re-administered at home the next day and also after the treatment of 3 further headaches, both at home and at a follow-up visit., Results: Ninety-eight patients in the VASCO cohort and 102 in the ALMO cohort were analyzed. Stability was evaluated in the VASCO cohort: 55/98 patients initially satisfied with treatment remained so at study end, whereas 7/98 became dissatisfied. Responsiveness of the VAS to a change in treatment was evaluated in the ALMO cohort: 64/102 patients moved to a higher treatment satisfaction category, whereas 6/102 moved to a lower one. Reproducibility of the VAS was determined in 4 settings (both at the inclusion visit and at study closure in both cohorts). In each setting, VAS scores were compared between consultation and at-home ratings. In 3 of the 4 settings (both measures in the ALMO cohort and at study closure in the VASCO cohort), good agreement was observed between the 2 ratings (κ = 0.62-0.69). At inclusion in the VASCO cohort, agreement was only fair (κ = 0.33)., Conclusions: The VAS scale described here is a responsive and easy-to-use tool for evaluating treatment satisfaction and for monitoring changes to treatment if these are required., (© 2012 American Headache Society.)

Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy of transcutaneous electrical neurostimulation (TENS) in patients with chronic low back pain (LBP)., Design: Prospective, randomized, multicentre, single-blind study., Setting: Twenty-one French pain centres., Participants: Two hundred thirty-six consecutive adult patients consulting for chronic LBP, with or without radicular pain (mean age ± standard deviation: 53 ± 13 years; range: 28-86 years)., Intervention: Patients were randomly assigned to receive either active (n = 117) or sham (n = 119) TENS in four 1-h daily treatment sessions for 3 months., Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measured was improvement of functional status at 6 weeks (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire). Secondary outcome measures were improvement of functional status at 3 months, pain relief (weekly visual analogue scale assessments), positive functional repercussions of pain levels on quality of life, a diminution of the use of analgesic and anti-inflammatory medication, satisfaction with the overall treatment strategy and compliance., Results: Functional status did not differ between the groups, whether at 6 weeks or 3 months (p = 0.351 at 6 weeks). A significant improvement between the first and last visual analogue scale assessments was observed in patients with either lumbar pain alone or lumbar and radicular pain treated with active TENS. Other outcome measures did not differ significantly between the two groups., Conclusion: There was no functional benefit of TENS in the treatment of patients with chronic LBP., (© 2011 European Federation of International Association for the Study of Pain Chapters.)

Background and Purpose: Headache disorders are very common, but their monetary costs in Europe are unknown. We performed the first comprehensive estimation of how economic resources are lost to headache in Europe., Methods:   From November 2008 to August 2009, a cross-sectional survey was conducted in eight countries representing 55% of the adult EU population. Participation rates varied between 11% and 59%. In total, 8412 questionnaires contributed to this analysis. Using bottom-up methodology, we estimated direct (medications, outpatient health care, hospitalization and investigations) and indirect (work absenteeism and reduced productivity at work) annual per-person costs. Prevalence data, simultaneously collected and, for migraine, also derived from a systematic review, were used to impute national costs., Results:   Mean per-person annual costs were €1222 for migraine (95% CI 1055-1389; indirect costs 93%), €303 for tension-type headache (TTH, 95% CI 230-376; indirect costs 92%), €3561 for medication-overuse headache (MOH, 95% CI 2487-4635; indirect costs 92%), and €253 for other headaches (95% CI 99-407; indirect costs 82%). In the EU, the total annual cost of headache amongst adults aged 18-65 years was calculated, according to our prevalence estimates, at €173 billion, apportioned to migraine (€111 billion; 64%), TTH (€21 billion; 12%), MOH (€37 billion; 21%) and other headaches (€3 billion; 2%). Using the 15% systematic review prevalence of migraine, calculated costs were somewhat lower (migraine €50 billion, all headache €112 billion annually)., Conclusions:   Headache disorders are prominent health-related drivers of immense economic losses for the EU. This has immediate implications for healthcare policy. Health care for headache can be both improved and cost saving., (© 2011 The Author(s). European Journal of Neurology © 2011 EFNS.)

Objective: The objective of the nationwide EXPERT survey carried out in France in 2005 was to compare satisfaction with treatment with treatment effectiveness in migraine patients consulting general practitioners (GPs) for migraine, and to establish an instrument to easily evaluate the adequacy of acute treatment of migraine., Background: Many migraine patients feel satisfied with their current acute treatment of migraine whereas objective evaluation reveals poor treatment effectiveness., Methods: A total of 2108 GPs included 11,274 migraine patients. Satisfaction with treatment was evaluated using a 4-point verbal scale and a 10-cm visual analog scale (VAS). Treatment effectiveness was assessed by the 4-item questionnaire designed by the French Medico-Economic Evaluation Service (ANAES) and the French Society for the Study of Migraine Headache (SFEMC)., Results: In total, 5224 patients (49.8%) stated that they were satisfied with their treatment. Mean VAS score was 5.1. Only 17% of patients (1789/10,539) gave positive responses at the 4 questions of the ANAES/SFEMC questionnaire. VAS score was high for patients satisfied with their treatment and with good treatment effectiveness. Two VAS thresholds were determined using receiver operating characteristic curves that allowed easy identification, with high sensitivity and specificity, of patients satisfied/dissatisfied with their current treatment and with good/poor treatment effectiveness. Based on EXPERT data, this instrument showed that only 16% of patients using triptans (597/3719) were dissatisfied and reported poor treatment effectiveness, whereas treatment was inadequate for 63% of those using aspirin or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (1882/2992), 74% of those using paracetamol or other analgesics (2229/2998), and 53% of those using ergotamine (253/474)., Conclusions: The new instrument should allow easy identification in general practice of the patients receiving an effective or ineffective acute treatment of migraine and thus facilitate the implementation of treatment guidelines for migraine., (© 2011 American Headache Society.)

Objectives: To describe the perception of migraine by neurologists in France, to compare perceptions between neurologists who did and did not suffer from migraines and to describe treatments used for their own migraines., Background: Patients with migraine are usually undertreated, as treatment guidelines are frequently not followed and, therefore, resulting treatment satisfaction is low. One reason for this may be inappropriate perceptions of physicians concerning the seriousness of the pathology and the need to treat. However, available information on physician perceptions of migraine is limited., Methods: This was an observational, epidemiological survey conducted both in hospital- and community-based neurologists in France. Participating neurologists completed an anonymous questionnaire which collected data on demographics, migraine status, and perceptions of migraine. Neurologists who considered themselves migraineurs also provided data on migraine impact, treatment and on treatment satisfaction. Distributions of responses to questions on migraine perceptions were compared between migraineur and nonmigraineur neurologists., Results: The study included 368 neurologists, of whom 179 (48.6%) were migraineurs themselves. Some 92.3% of participants claimed to be very or quite interested in migraine. Migraine was considered a real illness by 96.5% of neurologists and to be very or quite disabling by 96.6%. Around half perceived migraine as a challenging condition to manage with respect to unrealistic patient expectations (46.2%), time-consuming treatment (48.9%), and complications because of anxious or depressive comorbidity (59.9%) or medical nomadism (consulting multiple physicians for the same condition; 47.0%). No significant differences in any perception items were observed between migraineur and nonmigraineur neurologists. In total, 83.1% of neurologists were satisfied with acute headache treatments and 60.4% with prophylactic headache treatments. The most frequently reported treatments for neurologist's own migraines were nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (used by 57.0%) and triptans (50.3%)., Conclusions: French neurologists are interested and concerned about migraine but find it challenging to treat. Migraine perceptions do not differ between neurologists who do and do not suffer from migraines themselves. Neurology training needs to prepare medical students adequately for the challenges of migraine treatment in terms of patient communication and psychiatric issues.

Background: Pharmacy personnel are supposed to be well informed of recommendations for proper migraine management, but their easy access to medicines may favor self-medication and promote medication overuse for those with frequent migraine attacks., Objective: The main objective of the COTA survey was to investigate migraine management by pharmacy personnel who considered themselves as migraineurs., Methods: Out of 22,000 pharmacies currently open in France, a questionnaire was proposed to a random sample of approximately 4000 pharmacies with at least 1 self-considered migraineur in the pharmacy staff who accepted to complete and return the questionnaire. The reality of migraine was assessed by the study questionnaire according to the International Classification of Headache Disorders, 2nd edition (ICHD-II) criteria. In addition, the study questionnaire inquired about subjects' demographics, headache characteristics, consumption of medications for headaches, subjects' satisfaction with the usual treatment of headaches and treatment effectiveness. Medication overuse was defined in terms of treatment days per month during the previous 3 months according to the ICHD-II criteria for medication overuse headache., Results: Some 74% of the 3326 participating pharmacies with a self-considered migraine subject among their staff actually returned the survey questionnaire. Using the ICHD-II criteria, migraine was confirmed in 85% of participating subjects, of whom 38% were under medical supervision and had asked for a prescription, and 27% used recommended medications. The treatment used was truly effective for only 31% of migraineurs. Medication overuse was observed in 21% of all participating subjects, mostly migraineurs. Most migraineurs with medication overuse (81%) used nonrecommended treatments., Conclusions: Considering their pivotal role in advising migraine patients who seek their help with self-management, migraine education of pharmacy personnel about proper migraine management should be reinforced.

Objective: The aim of this study was to assess behavioral dependence on migraine abortive drugs in medication-overuse headache (MOH) patients and identify the predisposing factors., Background: It is common occurrence that MOH patients relapse after medication withdrawal. Behavioral determinants of medication overuse should therefore be identified in MOH patients., Methods: This was a cross-sectional, multicenter study that included 247 MOH patients (according to International Classification of Headache Disorders, 2nd edition criteria) consulting in French headache specialty centers. Face-to-face interviews were conducted by senior neurologists using a structured questionnaire including the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition (DSM-IV) criteria for the evaluation of dependence, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale for the evaluation of anxiety and depression, and 6-item short-form Headache Impact Test scale for the determination of functional impact., Results: Most MOH patients had pre-existing primary migraine (87.4%) and current migraine-type headaches (83.0%). Treatments overused included triptans (45.8%), opioid analgesics alone or in combination (43.3% of patients), and analgesics (27.9%). Nonmigraine abortive substances (tobacco, caffeine, sedatives/anxiolytics) were overused by 13.8% of patients. Two-thirds of MOH patients (66.8%) were considered dependent on acute treatments of headaches according to the DSM-IV criteria. Most dependent MOH patients had migraine as pre-existing primary headache (85.7%) and current migraine-type headaches (87.9%), and most of them overused opioid analgesics. More dependent than nondependent MOH patients were dependent on psychoactive substances (17.6% vs 6.1%). Multivariate logistic analysis indicated that risk factors of dependence on acute treatments of headaches pertained both to the underlying disease (history of migraine, unilateral headaches) and to drug addiction (opioid overuse, previous withdrawal). Affective symptoms did not appear among the predictive factors of dependence., Conclusion: In some cases, MOH thus appears to belong to the spectrum of addictive behaviors. In clinical practice, behavioral management of MOH should be undertaken besides pharmacological management.

Objective: To evaluate the proportion of migraineurs who are self-aware of their disease in France, to determine the factors (disability, quality of life, psychiatric comorbidities, and medical consultation) that may promote self-awareness of migraine, and to assess the influence of these factors on migraine attacks., Background: New recommendations for migraine diagnosis and medical management were released in 2003 by the French medicoeconomic evaluation service (ANAES). In addition, the revised classification of headache disorders recently issued by the International Headache Society includes probable migraine as a form of migraine. However, strict and probable migraine now appear to be part of the same spectrum of disease., Methods: Subjects with migraine (strict or probable) according to the revised classification were identified by a postal questionnaire from a large representative sample of the French adult population. Migraine-related disability was assessed using the MIDAS questionnaire, anxiety and depression by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale (HADS), and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) by the 8 concepts of the Short-Form 12 (SF-12) questionnaire. Migraine management was assessed according to the use of recommended or nonrecommended treatments, and treatment efficacy according to the set of 4 questions designed by the ANAES., Results: Of the 10,532 subjects interviewed, 1,179 subjects (21.3%) were identified as migraineurs. Sixty percent of all migraine subjects were not self-aware that they had migraine. Medical consultation, duration of migraine history, severe intensity of attacks, impact on daily living, and female gender promoted self-awareness of migraine. On the other hand, HRQoL and anxiety and depression scores were not different between subjects self-aware or not self-aware of migraine. Only 20% of all migraine subjects were medically followed-up. Quality of the first medical consultation appears determinant for continued consulting. Subjects self-aware of migraine more frequently used recommended acute treatments of migraine, which proved more effective than nonrecommended treatments as assessed according to the ANAES set of questions., Conclusions: Migraine medical diagnosis and follow-up remain low in France. Careful medical consultation is a prime factor for migraine subject self-awareness of migraine, continued consultation, and use of recommended medications for the treatment of migraine attacks.

Objectives: The objectives of this study were to determine the impact of headache on health-related quality of life in a nationwide sample of the French general population using a disease-specific measure, the Qualité de Vie et Migraine (QVM), to compare quality of life in subjects reporting different headache to types, and to evaluate the relationship between quality of life and severity, frequency, associated disability, and treatment responsiveness of headaches., Methods: The QVM questionnaire was included within a large epidemiological survey of 1486 headache sufferers. Diagnosis was assigned retrospectively using an algorithm based on the International Headache Society classification. Headache severity was assessed with the MIGSEV scale and disability with the MIDAS scale., Results: The mean global QVM score in the sample was 80.2. Quality of life was poorer in subjects with chronic daily headache (QVM score: 66.2) than in those with migraine (QVM score: 76.7), while those with other forms of episodic headache had the best quality of life (QVM score: 91.7). Quality-of-life scores were correlated with frequency, severity, disability, and treatment resistance of headaches (P <.001)., Conclusion: The QVM scale is a sensitive tool to measure health-related quality of life in headache sufferers in the general population.