Search

Background and Purpose: The aim was to provide insights to the characteristics of headache in the context of COVID-19 on behalf of the Headache Scientific Panel and the Neuro-COVID-19 Task Force of the European Academy of Neurology (EAN) and the European Headache Federation (EHF)., Methods: Following the Delphi method the Task Force identified six relevant questions and then conducted a systematic literature review to provide evidence-based answers and suggest specific diagnostic criteria., Results: No data for facial pain were identified in the literature search. (1) Headache incidence during acute COVID-19 varies considerably, with higher prevalence rates in prospective compared to retrospective studies (28.9%-74.6% vs. 6.5%-34.0%). (2) Acute COVID-19 headache is usually bilateral or holocranial and often moderate to severe with throbbing pain quality lasting 2-14 days after first signs of COVID-19; photo-phonophobia, nausea, anosmia and ageusia are common associated features; persistent headache shares similar clinical characteristics. (3) Acute COVID-19 headache is presumably caused by immune-mediated mechanisms that activate the trigeminovascular system. (4) Headache occurs in 13.3%-76.9% following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and occurs more often amongst women with a pre-existing primary headache; the risk of developing headache is higher with the adenoviral-vector-type vaccines than with other preparations. (5) Headache related to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is mostly bilateral, and throbbing, pressing, jolting or stabbing. (6) No studies have been conducted investigating the underlying mechanism of headache attributed to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines., Conclusion: The results of this joint EAN/EHF initiative provide a framework for a better understanding of headache in the context of SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination., (© 2024 The Authors. European Journal of Neurology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Academy of Neurology.)

The global prevalence of migraine as a primary headache has been estimated as 14.4% in both sexes. Migraine headache has been ranked as the highest contributor to disability in under 50 years old population in the world. Extensive research has been conducted in order to clarify the pathological mechanisms of migraine. Although uncertainties remains, it has been indicated that vascular dysfunction, cortical spreading depression (CSD), activation of the trigeminovascular pathway, pro-inflammatory and oxidative state may play a putative role in migraine pain generation. Knowledge about pathophysiological mechanisms of migraine should be integrated into a multimodal treatment approach to increase quality of life in patients. With respect to this, within the integrative health studies growing interest pertains to dietary interventions. Although the number of studies concerning effects of diet on headache/migraine is not yet very large, the current article will review the available evidence in this area. All publications on headache/migraine and dietary interventions up to May 2019 were included in the present review through a PubMed/MEDLINE and ScienceDirect database search. According to the current findings, Ketogenic diet and modified Atkins diet are thought to play a role in neuroprotection, improving mitochondrial function and energy metabolism, compensating serotoninergic dysfunction, decreasing calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) level and suppressing neuro-inflammation. It can also be speculated that prescription of low glycemic diet may be promising in headache/migraine control through attenuating the inflammatory state. Moreover, obesity and headaches including migraine could be attributed to each other through mechanisms like inflammation, and irregular hypothalamic function. Thereby, applying dietary strategies for weight loss may also ameliorate headache/migraine. Another important dietary intervention that might be effective in headache/migraine improvement is related to balance between the intake of essential fatty acids, omega-6 and omega-3 which also affect inflammatory responses, platelet function and regulation of vascular tone. Regarding elimination diets, it appears that targeted these diets in migraine patients with food sensitivities could be effective in headache/migraine prevention. Taken together, dietary approaches that could be considered as effective strategies in headache/migraine prophylaxis include weight loss diets in obese headache patients, ketogenic and low-calorie diets, reducing omega-6 and increasing omega-3 fatty acid intakes.

Background and Aim: Headache is very often the cause for seeking an emergency department (ED). However, less is known about the different diagnosis of headache disorders in the ED, their management and treatment. The aim of this survey is to analyse the management of headache patients in two different ED in Europe., Methods: This retrospective survey was performed from September 2018 until January 2019. Patients were collected from the San Luca Hospital, Milan, Italy and the Ordensklinikum Barmherzige Schwestern, Linz, Austria. Only patients with a non-traumatic headache, as the primary reason for medical clarification, were included. Patients were analysed for their complexity and range of examination, their diagnoses, acute treatment and overall efficacy rate., Results: The survey consists of 415 patients, with a mean age of 43.32 (SD ±17.72); 65% were female. Technical investigation was performed in 57.8% of patients. For acute treatment non-steroidal-anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) were the most used, whereas triptans were not given. A primary headache disorder was diagnosed in 45.3% of patients, being migraine the most common, but in 32% of cases the diagnosis was not further specified. Life-threatening secondary headaches accounted for less than 2% of cases., Conclusions: The vast majority of patients attending an ED because of headache are suffering from a primary headache disorder. Life-threatening secondary headaches are rare but seek attention. NSAIDs are by far the most common drugs for treating headaches in the ED, but not triptans.

Background: Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension (IIH) is characterized by an elevation of intracranial pressure (ICP no identifiable cause. The aetiology remains largely unknown, however observations made in a number of recent clinical studies are increasing the understanding of the disease and now provide the basis for evidence-based treatment strategies., Methods: The Embase, CDSR, CENTRAL, DARE and MEDLINE databases were searched up to 1st June 2018. We analyzed randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews that investigate IIH., Results: Diagnostic uncertainty, headache morbidity and visual loss are among the highest concerns of clinicians and patients in this disease area. Research in this field is infrequent due to the rarity of the disease and the lack of understanding of the underlying pathology., Conclusions: This European Headache Federation consensus paper provides evidence-based recommendations and practical advice on the investigation and management of IIH.

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: Recurrent and especially chronic headaches are associated with psychiatric comorbidities such as depression and anxiety. Only few studies examined the impact of depression and anxiety on episodic (EH) and chronic headache (CH), and data for Austria are missing at all. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to assess the impact of depression and anxiety on burden and management of EH and CH in patients from eight Austrian headache centres., Methods: We included 392 patients (84.1 % female, mean age 40.4 ± 14.0 years) who completed the Eurolight questionnaire. The treating physician recorded details about ever-before prophylactic medications. We used Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale to assess depression and anxiety and compared patients with anxiety and/or depression to those without., Results: Depression and anxiety were more common in CH than in EH (64 % vs. 41 %, p < 0.0001). Presence compared to absence of depression and anxiety increased the prevalence of poor or very poor quality of life from 0.7 % to 13.1 % in EH and from 3.6 % to 40.3 % in CH (p = 0.001; p < 0.0001). Depression and anxiety had a statistically significant impact on employment status and on variables related to the burden of headache such as reduced earnings, being less successful in career, or feeling less understood. Neither in EH nor in CH health care use and the ever-before use of prophylactic medication was correlated with anxiety and/or depression., Conclusion: Depression and anxiety have a significant impact on quality of life and increase the burden in patients with EH and CH. Improved multidimensional treatment approaches are necessary to decrease disability on the personal, social and occupational level in these patients.

Background: Headache disorders and psychiatric disorders are both common, while evidence, mostly pertaining to migraine, suggests they are comorbid more often than might be expected by chance. There are good reasons for establishing whether they are: symptoms of comorbid illnesses may summate synergistically; comorbidities hinder management, negatively influencing outcomes; high-level comorbidity indicates that, where one disease occurs, the other should be looked for. The Eurolight project gathered population-based data on these disorders from 6624 participants., Methods: Eurolight was a cross-sectional survey sampling from the adult populations (18-65 years) of 10 EU countries. We used data from six. The questionnaire included headache-diagnostic questions based on ICHD-II, the Headache-Attributed Lost Time (HALT) questionnaire, and HADS for depression and anxiety. We estimated odds ratios (ORs) to show associations between migraine, tension-type headache (TTH) or probable medication-overuse headache (pMOH) and depression or anxiety., Results: pMOH was most strongly associated with both psychiatric disorders: for depression, ORs (vs no headache) were 5.5 [2.2-13.5] (p < 0.0001) in males, 5.5 [2.9-10.5] (p < 0.0001) in females; for anxiety, ORs were 10.4 [4.9-21.8] (p < 0.0001) and 7.1 [4.5-11.2] (p < 0.0001). Migraine was also associated with both: for depression, ORs were 2.1 [1.3-3.4] (p = 0.002) and 1.8 [1.1-3.1] (p = 0.030); for anxiety 4.2 [2.8-6.3] (p < 0.0001) and 2.4 [1.7-3.4] (p < 0.0001). TTH showed associations only with anxiety: ORs 2.5 [1.7-3.7] (p < 0.0001) for males, 1.5 [1.1-2.1] (p = 0.021) for females. Participants with migraine carried 19.1 % probability of comorbid anxiety, 6.9 % of depression and 5.1 % of both, higher than the representative general-population sample (14.3, 5.6 and 3.8 %). Probabilities in those with MOH were 38.8, 16.9 and 14.4 %; in TTH, they did not exceed those of the whole sample. Comorbid psychiatric disorder did not add to headache-attributed productive time losses, but weak associations existed (R (2)  = 0.020-0.082) for all headache types between lost productive time and probabilities of depression and, less so, anxiety., Conclusion: In this large study we confirmed that depression and especially anxiety are comorbid more than by chance with migraine, and showed the same is true, but more strongly, with MOH. Arguably, migraine patients and, more certainly, MOH patients should be screened with HADS in pursuit of best outcomes.

Background: Episodic and chronic headaches (EH, CH) are highly prevalent disorders. Severely affected patients are usually referred to headache centres. In Austria, at least one headache centre is available in seven of nine states, but detailed multicentre data are missing. Therefore we studied prevalence rates, use of medication and health care services, impact of headaches, and comorbid depression and anxiety., Methods: We included consecutive patients from eight Austrian outpatient headache centres. The patients filled-in the Eurolight questionnaire. In addition, the treating neurologist completed a questionnaire on clinical diagnoses and ever-before prophylactic medications., Results: Of 598 patients screened, 441 questionnaires were analysed (79 % female, mean age 41.1 years). According to the Eurolight algorithm, 56.4 % of the patients had EH, 38.3 % had CH and 5.2 % did not give their headache frequency. The prevalence rates of migraine, tension-type headache, and probable medication overuse headache (pMOH) were 48.5 %, 6.3 % and 15.9 %, respectively. The concordance between clinical and Eurolight diagnoses was good for EH and moderate for CH. During the preceding month, acute medication was used by 90.9 % of the patients and prophylactic medication by 34 %. Ever-before use of five standard prophylactic drugs was recorded in 52.3 %. The proportion of patients with current pharmacoprophylaxis did not differ in EH and CH, whereas ever-before use was more common in CH (62.5 % was 45,3 %, p = 0.02). Patients with CH significantly more often consulted general practitioners and emergency departments, had a lower quality of life and more often signs of depression and anxiety., Conclusion: This study provides comprehensive data from eight Austrian headache centres for the first time. We found a substantial number of patients with CH including pMOH and its association with more common utilization of health care facilities and greater burden. The low use of prophylactic medication requires further examination.

Background: Surveys enquiring about burden of headache over a prior period of time (e.g., 3 months) are subject to recall bias. To eliminate this as far as possible, we focused on presence and impact of headache on the preceding day ("headache yesterday")., Methods: Adults (18-65 years) were surveyed from the general populations of Germany, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, from a work-force population in Spain and from mostly non-headache patient populations of Austria, France and U.K. A study of non-responders in some countries allowed detection of potential participation bias where initial participation rates were low., Results: Participation rates varied between 11% and 59% (mean 27%). Non-responder studies suggested that, because of participation bias, headache prevalence might be overestimated in initial responders by up to 2% (absolute). Across all countries, 1,422 of 8,271 participants (15-17%, depending on correction for participation bias) had headache yesterday lasting on average for 6 hours. It was bad or very bad in 56% of cases and caused absence from work or school in 6%. Among those who worked despite headache, 20% reported productivity reduced by >50%. Social activities were lost by 24%. Women (21%) were more likely than men (12%) to have headache yesterday, but impact was similar in the two genders., Conclusions: With recall biases avoided, our findings indicate that headache costs at least 0.7% of working capacity in Europe. This calculation takes into account that most of those who missed work could make up for this later, which, however, means that leisure and social activities are even more influenced by headache.

Background: European data, at least from Western Europe, are relatively good on migraine prevalence but less sound for tension-type headache (TTH) and medication-overuse headache (MOH). Evidence on impact of headache disorders is very limited. Eurolight was a data-gathering exercise primarily to inform health policy in the European Union (EU). This manuscript reports personal impact., Methods: The study was cross-sectional with modified cluster sampling. Surveys were conducted by structured questionnaire, including diagnostic questions based on ICHD-II and various measures of impact, and are reported from Austria, France, Germany, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Spain and United Kingdom. Different methods of sampling were used in each. The full methodology is described elsewhere., Results: Questionnaires were analysed from 8,271 participants (58% female, mean age 43.4 y). Participation-rates, where calculable, varied from 10.6% to 58.8%. Moderate interest-bias was detected. Unadjusted lifetime prevalence of any headache was 91.3%. Gender-adjusted 1-year prevalences were: any headache 78.6%; migraine 35.3%; TTH 38.2%, headache on ≥15 d/mo 7.2%; probable MOH 3.1%. Personal impact was high, and included ictal symptom burden, interictal burden, cumulative burden and impact on others (partners and children). There was a general gradient of probable MOH > migraine > TTH, and most measures indicated higher impact among females. Lost useful time was substantial: 17.7% of males and 28.0% of females with migraine lost >10% of days; 44.7% of males and 53.7% of females with probable MOH lost >20%., Conclusions: The common headache disorders have very high personal impact in the EU, with important implications for health policy.

We asked whether attempts to introduce headache services in poor countries would be futile on grounds of cost and unsustainability. Using data from a population-based survey in the Republic of Georgia, an exemplary poor country with limited health care, and against the background of headache-attributed burden, we report on willingness to pay (WTP) for effective headache treatment. Consecutive households were visited in areas of Tbilisi (urban) and Kakheti (rural), together representative of Georgian habitation. Biologically unrelated adults were interviewed by medical residents using a structured ICHD-II-based diagnostic questionnaire, the MIDAS questionnaire and SF-36. The bidding-game method was employed to assess WTP. Of 1,145 respondents, 50.0% had episodic headache (migraine and/or tension-type headache) and 7.6% had headache on ≥15 days/month, which was not further diagnosed. MIDAS scores were higher in people with headache on ≥15 days/month (mean 11.2) than in those with episodic headache (mean 7.0; P = 0.004). People with headache had worse scores in all SF-36 sub-scales than those without, but no differences were found between headache types. Almost all (93%) respondents with headache reported WTP averaging USD 8 per month for effective headache treatment. WTP did not correlate with headache type or frequency, or with MIDAS or SF-36 scores. Headache is common and headache-attributed burden is high in Georgia, with a profound impact on HRQoL. Even those less affected indicated WTP for effective treatment, if it were available, that would on average cover costs, which locally are low. Headache services in a poor country are potentially sustainable.

This document is a reply to a letter regarding headaches during or after SARS-CoV-2 infection or vaccination. The authors address five points raised in the letter, including the distinction between acute COVID-19 and long COVID syndrome, the presence of facial pain as a complication, the classification of headaches as primary or secondary, the consideration of other causes of secondary headaches, and the rarity of cerebral sinus thrombosis in the context of SARS-CoV-2 infection or vaccination. The authors provide detailed responses to each point, clarifying their position and supporting their conclusions with evidence from the literature. [Extracted from the article]

Introduction: Despite advances in the management of headache disorders, some patients with migraine do not experience adequate pain relief with acute and preventive treatments. It is the aim of the present document to provide a definition of those migraines which are difficult-to-treat, to create awareness of existence of this group of patients, to help Healthcare Authorities in understanding the implications, and to create a basis to develop a better pathophysiological understanding and to support further therapeutic advances. Main body: Definitions were established with a consensus process using the Delphi method. Patients with migraine with or without aura or with chronic migraine can be defined as having resistant migraine and refractory migraine according to previous preventative failures. Resistant migraine is defined by having failed at least 3 classes of migraine preventatives and suffer from at least 8 debilitating headache days per month for at least 3 consecutive months without improvement; definition can be based on review of medical charts. Refractory migraine is defined by having failed all of the available preventatives and suffer from at least 8 debilitating headache days per month for at least 6 consecutive months. Drug failure may include lack of efficacy or lack of tolerability. Debilitating headache is defined as headache causing serious impairment to conduct activities of daily living despite the use of pain-relief drugs with established efficacy at the recommended dose and taken early during the attack; failure of at least two different triptans is required. Conclusions: We hope, that the updated EHF definition will be able to solve the conflicts that have limited the use of definitions which have been put forward in the past. Only with a widely accepted definition, progresses in difficult-to-treat migraine can be achieved. This new definition has also the aim to increase the understanding of the impact of the migraine as a disease with all of its social, legal and healthcare implications. It is the hope of the EHF Expert Consensus Group that the proposed criteria will stimulate further clinical, scientific and social attention to patients who suffer from migraine which is difficult-to-treat. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Episodic and chronic headaches (EH, CH) are highly prevalent disorders. Severely affected patients are usually referred to headache centres. In Austria, at least one headache centre is available in seven of nine states, but detailed multicentre data are missing. Therefore we studied prevalence rates, use of medication and health care services, impact of headaches, and comorbid depression and anxiety. Methods: We included consecutive patients from eight Austrian outpatient headache centres. The patients filled-in the Eurolight questionnaire. In addition, the treating neurologist completed a questionnaire on clinical diagnoses and ever-before prophylactic medications. Results: Of 598 patients screened, 441 questionnaires were analysed (79% female, mean age 41.1 years). According to the Eurolight algorithm, 56.4% of the patients had EH, 38.3% had CH and 5.2% did not give their headache frequency. The prevalence rates of migraine, tension-type headache, and probable medication overuse headache (pMOH) were 48.5%, 6.3% and 15.9%, respectively. The concordance between clinical and Eurolight diagnoses was good for EH and moderate for CH. During the preceding month, acute medication was used by 90.9% of the patients and prophylactic medication by 34%. Ever-before use of five standard prophylactic drugs was recorded in 52.3%. The proportion of patients with current pharmacoprophylaxis did not differ in EH and CH, whereas ever-before use was more common in CH (62.5% was 45,3%, p = 0.02). Patients with CH significantly more often consulted general practitioners and emergency departments, had a lower quality of life and more often signs of depression and anxiety. Conclusion: This study provides comprehensive data from eight Austrian headache centres for the first time. We found a substantial number of patients with CH including pMOH and its association with more common utilization of health care facilities and greater burden. The low use of prophylactic medication requires further examination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Migraine is often associated with health consequences including impaired quality of life, and the cost of treating migraine headaches places a significant financial burden on patients who suffer from migraines. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and triptans are commonly used for the treatment of acute migraine attacks. Aspirin is widely accepted as a treatment option for migraine pain relief and could provide an alternative not only for treatment of moderate migraine attacks, but also for severe migraine attacks. The efficacy and safety of 1,000 mg effervescent aspirin (eASA) was evaluated in comparison to 50 mg sumatriptan and placebo in an individual patient data meta-analysis of three randomized, placebo-controlled, single- dose migraine trials. Pain-relief at 2 h, pain-free at 2 h and sustained pain-free up to 24 h were calculated. For eASA, the response rates were 51.5 % (95 % CI: 46.6–56.5 %), 27.1 % (95 % CI: 22.6–31.4 %), and 23.5 % (95 % CI: 19.3–27.7 %). For sumatriptan, the response rates were 46.6 % (95% CI: 40.0–53.2 %), 29% (95 % CI: 23.0–34.9 %), and 22.2 % (95 % CI: 16.7–27.6 %). The corresponding rates for placebo were 33.9 % (95% CI: 29.1–38.6 %), 15.1 % (95 % CI: 11.5–18.7 %), and 14.6 % (95 % CI: 11.0–18.1 %). The treatment effect of eASA and sumatriptan were significantly different from placebo (p < 0.001), but differences between eASA and sumatriptan were not significant. The remission of accompanying symptoms and the subgroup analyses of patients with moderate or severe migraine pain at baseline revealed no significant differences between eASA and sumatriptan. Safety was evaluated based on the frequency of reported adverse events, and treatment with eASA was associated with lower incidence of adverse events than was with sumatriptan. This individual patient data meta-analysis provided evidence that eASA 1,000mg is as effective as sumatriptan 50mg for the treatment of acute migraine attacks and has a better side effect profile. This is also true for patients with moderate as well as severe headache at baseline. Patients therefore should be advised to use eASA first for migraine attacks and use a triptan in case of no response. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective.—To evaluate the efficacy of topiramate in the treatment of migraine aura. Antiepileptic drugs may be useful in migraine prevention through such mechanisms as acting directly on the nociceptive system or by modulating the biochemical phenomena of aura. Topiramate acts directly on N-methyl- d-aspartate and amino-3-hydroxy-5-methylisoxazole-4-propionic acid/kainate glutamate receptors and modulates calcium ion channel activity by inhibiting high-voltage–activated L-type calcium ion channels. Methods.—Twelve patients with migraine with aura were enrolled in an open-label study and treated with topiramate for 6 months. The dose of topiramate was increased weekly by 25 mg up to a daily dose of 100 mg after 4 weeks. Results.—In all 12 patients after 6 months of treatment, topiramate did not statistically influence aura frequency ( P= .317) or duration ( P= .480) compared with baseline. Mild to moderate side effects were observed, but they did not interfere with treatment. Consistent with previous observations, migraine frequency as well as headache intensity and duration improved statistically significantly. Conclusion.—Topiramate is not effective in preventing migraine aura. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and aim: Migraine headache and vestibular-type vertigo co-occur in the general population about three times more often than expected by chance. Attacks of episodic vertigo (eV) are currently not recognized as migraine equivalents or variants in the International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition (ICHD III). No strong data exist about the prevalence of eV during the phases of a migraine attack. The aim of this study is to analyze the timing association between migraine-related episodic vertigo and the phases of migraine. Methods: The "Migraine and Neck Pain Study" gathered data from nearly 500 adult participants in a questionnaire-based survey. In this prospective, follow-up study we re-analyzed patients with episodic migraine with and without aura who experienced eV anytime around their migraine attacks. For this we defined 3 different time periods. Results: 146/487 (30%) reported eV anytime during the migraine attack; 79/487 (16%) that noticed eV with the start of the headache, 51/487 (10%) within 2 h before the headache and 16/487 (3%) experienced eV 2–48 h before the headache, as a premonitory symptom. 130/487 (26.7%) of our patients can be diagnosed with vestibular or probable vestibular migraine supporting the clinical association of migraine and vertigo. Conclusions: Our results seem to further support the concept that vertigo in migraine is best thought of as an integral manifestation of migraine, rather than a prodromal or aura symptom. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Migraine is prevalent everywhere, and disabling. It is also neglected: consequently, it is under-diagnosed and undertreated. We analysed data from the Eurolight study on consultations and utilization of migraine-specific medications as indicators of adequacy of medical care in Europe.Methods: Eurolight was a cross-sectional questionnaire-based survey in 10 European countries. Sampling was population-based in six (Germany, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Spain) and from consecutive patients attending general practitioners (GPs) for any reason in three (Austria, France, UK). Additional samples in Netherlands and Spain, and the only sample from Ireland, were recruited by lay headache organisations. We recorded migraine prevalence and frequency, and utilization of medical services and medications (acute and preventative).Results: Among 9247 participants (mean age 43.9 ± 13.9 years, M/F ratio 1:1.4), 3466 (37.6%) were diagnosed with migraine (definite or probable). Of these, 1175 (33.8%) reported frequent migraine (> 5 days/month) and might clearly expect benefit from, and therefore had need of, preventative medication. In population-based samples, minorities of participants with migraine had seen a GP (9.5–18.0%) or specialist (3.1–15.0%), and smaller minorities received adequate treatment: triptans 3.4–11.0%, with Spain outlying at 22.4%; preventative medication (1.6–6.4% of those eligible, with Spain again outlying at 13.7%). Proportions were greater in GP-based samples (13.6–24.5% using triptans, 4.4–9.1% on preventative medication) and among those from lay organisations (46.2–68.2% and 16.0–41.7%). Participants with migraine who had consulted specialists (3.1–33.8%) were receiving the best care by these indicators; those treated by GPs (9.5–29.6%) fared less well, and those dependent on self-medication (48.0–84.2%) were, apparently, inadequately treated.Conclusion: In wealthy European countries, too few people with migraine consult physicians, with proportionately too many of these seeing specialists, and migraine-specific medications are used inadequately even among those who do. These findings represent yet another call for action in Europe to improve care for people with headache. Education of both health-care providers and the public should be central to this action. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We developed a 103-item self-reporting questionnaire to assess the burden of primary headache disorders on those affected by them, including headache characteristics, associated disability, co-morbidities, disease-management and quality of life. We validated the questionnaire in five languages with 426 participants (131 in UK, 60 in Italy, 107 in Spain, 83 in Germany/Austria, and 45 in France). After a linguistic and a face-content validation, we tested the questionnaire for comprehensibility, internal consistency and test—retest reliability at an interval of one month. In the different countries, response rates were between 73% and 100%. Test—retest reliability varied between —0.27 to 1.0 depending of the nature of the expected agreement. The internal consistency was between 0.69 and 0.91. The EUROLIGHT questionnaire is suitable for evaluating the burden of primary headache disorders, and can be used in English, German, French, Italian and Spanish. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]