Search

Background: Low back pain is common in the general population and in individuals with primary headaches. We assessed the relative frequency of self-reported back pain in persons with and without primary headaches and examined pain sensitivity., Method: A population of 796 individuals completed a headache interview based on ICHD criteria and provided data of interest in a self-administered questionnaire. Headache cases were classified into chronic (≥15) (CH) or episodic (<15 headache days/month) (EH). A total of 495 had a pericranial total tenderness score (TTS), and 494 had cephalic and extracephalic pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) assessed., Results: Adjusted for age, gender, education and poor self-rated health, 1-year relative frequency of back pain was higher in individuals with CH (82.5%) and EH (80.1%) compared to no headache group (65.7%). In persons with back pain, TTS was higher in CH, (26.3 ± 12.1) than in EH, (18.5 ± 10.0; p < 0.001) and higher in both groups than in those with no headache, 10.8 ± 8.5 (p < 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively). In persons with back pain, temporalis PPT were lower in CH, 169.3 ± 57.8, than in EH, 225.2 ± 98.1, and in no headache group, 244.3 ± 105.4 (p = 0.02 and p = 0.01, respectively). In persons with back pain, finger PPT were lower in CH, 237.1 ± 106.7, than in EH, 291.3 ± 141.3, or in no headache group, 304.3 ± 137.4 (p = 0.02 and p < 0.001, respectively)., Conclusion: Back pain is highly frequent in individuals with CH, followed by EH and no headache. In persons with CH, back pain is associated with lower cephalic and extracephalic PPTs suggesting central sensitization may be a substrate or consequence of comorbidity., Significance: We found that back pain has high relative frequency in individuals with CH followed EH and no headache. Back pain is associated with low cephalic and extracephalic PPTs in individuals with CH. Central sensitization may be a substrate or consequence of this comorbidity of back pain and CH., (© 2018 European Pain Federation - EFIC®.)

Background: Headache disorders are both common and burdensome but, given the many people affected, provision of health care to all is challenging. Structured headache services based in primary care are the most efficient, equitable and cost-effective solution but place responsibility for managing most patients on health-care providers with limited training in headache care. The development of practical management aids for primary care is therefore a purpose of the Global Campaign against Headache. This manuscript presents an outcome measure, the Headache Under-Response to Treatment (HURT) questionnaire, describing its purpose, development, psychometric evaluation and assessment for clinical utility. The objective was a simple-to-use instrument that would both assess outcome and provide guidance to improving outcome, having utility across the range of headache disorders, across clinical settings and across countries and cultures., Methods: After literature review, an expert consensus group drawn from all six world regions formulated HURT through item development and item reduction using item-response theory. Using the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention Study's general-population respondent panel, two mailed surveys assessed the psychometric properties of HURT, comparing it with other instruments as external validators. Reliability was assessed in patients in two culturally-contrasting clinical settings: headache specialist centres in Europe (n = 159) and primary-care centres in Saudi Arabia (n = 40). Clinical utility was assessed in similar settings (Europe n = 201; Saudi Arabia n = 342)., Results: The final instrument, an 8-item self-administered questionnaire, addressed headache frequency, disability, medication use and effect, patients' perceptions of headache "control" and their understanding of their diagnoses. Psychometric evaluation revealed a two-factor model (headache frequency, disability and medication use; and medication efficacy and headache control), with scale properties apparently stable across disorders and correlating well and in the expected directions with external validators. The literature review found few instruments linking assessment to clinical advice or suggested actions: HURT appeared to fill this gap. In European specialist care, it showed utility as an outcome measure across headache disorders. In Saudi Arabian primary care, HURT (translated into Arabic) was reliable and responsive to clinical change., Conclusions: With demonstrated validity and clinical utility across disorders, cultures and settings, HURT is available for clinical and research purposes.

Objectives: People with migraine and tension-type headache (TTH) have psychiatric comorbidities. We aimed to test differences in mental health constructs by type and frequency of primary headache and associated pain sensitivity., Materials and Methods: Data on headache features, neuroticism (Eysenck Personality Questionnaire) and depression (Major Depression Inventory) were obtained from 547 individuals classified into chronic (≥15) or episodic (<15 headache days/month) and into pure migraine (n=43), pure tension type headache (TTH, n=97), migraine and TTH (n=83) and no headache diagnosis (controls, n=324) groups. A pericranial total tenderness score (TTS) and pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) were measured. Differences in mental health constructs were examined by headache frequency and type using generalized linear mixed models adjusting for sociodemographic covariates., Results: Depression scores were highest among people with chronic headache, lower in those with episodic headache, and lowest in controls. The chronic and episodic headache groups had higher neuroticism scores than controls. Mental health construct scores were highest for the migraine and TTH group and lowest in the control group. TTS and cephalic PPTs were correlated with neuroticism and depression and were higher in the chronic headache group compared to the no headache group even when adjusted for neuroticism and depression., Conclusions: Neuroticism and depression scores are associated with headache frequency (chronic vs episodic) and are highest for migraine and TTH followed by pure TTH then migraine. Mental health constructs were correlated with but did not influence differences in TTS and PPTs between headache groups., (© 2017 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Migraine is a disabling neurological disease that affects 14.7 % of Europeans. Studies evaluating the economic impact of migraine are complex to conduct adequately and with time become outdated as healthcare systems evolve. This study sought to quantify and compare direct medical costs of chronic migraine (CM) and episodic migraine (EM) in five European countries. Cross-sectional data collected via a web-based survey were screened for migraine and classified as CM (≥15 headache days/month) or EM (<15 headache days/month), and included sociodemographics, resource use data and medication use. Unit cost data, gathered using publicly available sources, were analyzed for each type of service, stratified by migraine status. Univariate and multivariate log-normal regression models were used to examine the relationship between various factors and their impact on total healthcare costs. This economic analysis included data from respondents with migraine in the UK, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain. CM participants had higher level of disability and more prevalent psychiatric disorders compared to EM. CM participants had more provider visits, emergency department/hospital visits, and diagnostic tests; the medical costs were three times higher for CM than EM. Per patient annual costs were highest in the UK and Spain and lower in France and Germany. CM was associated with higher medical resource use and total costs compared to EM in all study countries, suggesting that treatments that reduce headache frequency could decrease the clinical and economic burden of migraine in Europe. Comparing patterns of care and outcomes among countries may facilitate the development of more cost-effective care, and bring greater recognition to patients affected by migraine.

Background: The Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6) has been demonstrated to be a reliable and valid measure that assesses the impact of headaches on the lives of persons with migraine. Originally used in studies of episodic migraine (EM), HIT-6 is finding increasing applications in chronic migraine (CM) research., Objectives: (1) To examine the headache-impact on persons with migraine (EM and CM) using HIT-6 in a large population sample; (2) to identify predictors of headache-impact in this sample; (3) to assess the magnitude of effect for significant predictors of headache-impact in this sample., Methods: The American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention study is a longitudinal, population-based study that collected data from persons with severe headache from 2004 to 2009 through annual, mailed surveys. Respondents to the 2009 survey who met International Classification of Headache Disorders 2 criteria for migraine reported at least 1 headache in the preceding year, and completed the HIT-6 questionnaire were included in the present analysis. Persons with migraine were categorized as EM (average <15 headache days per month) or CM (average ≥15 headache days per month). Predictors of headache-impact examined include: sociodemographics; headache days per month; a composite migraine symptom severity score (MSS); an average pain severity rating during the most recent long-duration headache; depression; and anxiety. HIT-6 scores were analyzed both as continuous sum scores and using the standard, validated categories: no impact; some impact; substantial impact; and severe impact. Group contrasts were based on descriptive statistics along with linear regression models. Multiple imputation techniques were used to manage missing data., Results: There were 7169 eligible respondents (CM = 373, EM = 6554). HIT-6 scores were normally distributed. After converting sum HIT-6 scores to the standard categories, those with CM were significantly more likely to experience "severe" headache impact (72.9% vs 42.3%) and had higher odds of greater adverse headache impact compared with persons with EM (OR = 3.5, 95% CI = 2.77-4.41, P < .0001). Significant predictors of adverse headache impact in both groups included younger age, higher MSS score, higher average long-duration headache pain severity rating, and depression. Lower annual household income, anxiety, and higher standardized headache day frequency predicted adverse headache impact in EM but not CM. With few exceptions, gender, race, and body mass index did not significantly predict adverse headache impact. Finally, rates of depression were more than double among persons with CM (CM = 25.2%, EM = 10.0%), and rates of anxiety were nearly triple (CM = 23.6%, EM = 8.5%)., Conclusions: This work further establishes HIT-6 as a useful instrument for characterizing CM and understanding the increased disease related burden. Persons with CM had significantly higher odds of greater adverse headache impact, when compared with EM. Predictors of greater headache impact for both groups included higher MSS scores, higher average headache pain severity, and depression. Additional predictors unique to EM included higher average household income, younger age, higher standardized headache day frequency, and anxiety. This finding may be related to differences in sample size and power. Further exploration is warranted., (© 2011 American Headache Society.)

Objectives: This study has 3 objectives: 1) to estimate remission rates in a population-based sample of subjects with chronic migraine (CM); 2) to identify potential predictors of CM remission; and 3) to assess the influence of CM remission on headache-related disability., Methods: The American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention study is a prospective, population-based, mailed questionnaire survey, which included questions regarding headache frequency, symptomatology, demographics, comorbidities, health care utilization, and headache-related disability. Three years of longitudinal data were analyzed to determine rates of CM remission and assess predictors of remission using logistical regression models. The consequence of remission was measured by changes in disability, as measured by the Migraine Disability Assessment, over time., Results: A total of 383 respondents had CM in 2005 and follow-up data in 2006 and 2007. Over 2 years, among those with CM at baseline, approximately 34% (n = 130) had persistent CM while 26% (n = 100) had remitted CM. In our final multivariate model, predictors of remission included baseline headache frequency (15-19 vs 25-31 headache days/month; odds ratio [OR] 0.29; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.11 to 0.75) and absence of allodynia (OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.89). Preventive medication use was associated with lower remission rate (OR 0.41; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.75), but this effect lost significance when headache frequency was included. Over 2 years, those with persistent CM demonstrated increased disability while those with remitted CM demonstrated decreased disability., Conclusions: These findings have clinical practice implications, as it is important to consider that remission rates are variable. However, the benefit of remission goes beyond symptom reduction and may translate to marked decreases in headache-related disability.

Background: Migraine imposes significant burden on patients, their families and health care systems. In this study, we compared episodic to chronic migraine sufferers to determine if migraine status predicted headache-related disability, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and health care resource utilization., Methods: A Web-based survey was administered to panelists from nine countries. Participants were classified as having chronic migraine (CM), episodic migraine (EM) or neither using a validated questionnaire. Data collected and then analyzed included sociodemographics, clinical characteristics, Migraine Disability Assessment, Migraine-Specific Quality of Life v2.1, Patient Health Questionnaire and health care resource utilization., Findings: Of the respondents, 5.7% had CM and 94.3% had EM, with CM patients reporting significantly more severe disability, lower HRQoL, higher levels of anxiety and depression and greater health care resource utilization compared to those with EM., Interpretation: These results provide evidence that will enhance our understanding of the factors driving health care costs and will contribute to development of cost-effective health care strategies.

The present study assessed age- and sex-specific patterns of migraine prevalence in a US population of 40,892 men, women, and children who participated in the 2003 National Health Interview Survey. Gaussian mixture models characterised the relationship between migraine, age, and sex. Migraine prevalence was 8.6% (males), 17.5% (females), and 13.2% (overall) and showed a bimodal distribution in both sexes (peaking in the late teens and 20s and around 50 years of age). Rate of change in migraine prevalence for both sexes increased the fastest from age 3 years to the mid-20s. Beyond the age of 10 years, females had a higher prevalence of migraine than males. The prevalence ratio for females versus males was highest during the female reproductive/child-bearing years, consistent with a relationship between menstruation and migraine. After age 42 years, the prevalence ratio was approximately 2-fold higher in women.

Logistic regression was used to evaluate the relationship between self-reported medical diagnosis of migraine, self-reported depressive symptomology (RDS) and self-reported anxious symptomology (RAS) in the National Health Interview Survey (n = 30 852). Semipartial squared correlations evaluated the population-level variability between RDS, RAS and migraine impairment. Migraine prevalence was 15.2% (overall), 20.5% (women) and 9.4% (men). Migraine risk was higher in participants with RAS [odds ratio (OR) 2.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.09, 2.52), with RDS (OR 2.23, 95% CI 1.93, 2.58), who smoked (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.09, 1.30), or who consulted a mental health provider (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.27, 1.65). Although migraine risk was increased in both women (OR 1.93) and men (OR 2.42) with RAS (P < 0.001), men with RAS had a higher migraine risk than did women with RAS (P < 0.001). Only 7% of the variability in migraine impairment (population level) was predicted by variability in RDS and/or RAS.

Objective: To characterise and compare the sociodemographic profiles and the frequency of common comorbidities for adults with chronic migraine (CM) and episodic migraine (EM) in a large population-based sample., Methods: The American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention (AMPP) study is a longitudinal, population-based, survey. Data from the 2005 survey were analysed to assess differences in sociodemographic profiles and rates of common comorbidities between two groups of respondents: CM (ICHD-2 defined migraine; > or =15 days of headache per month) and EM (ICHD-2 defined migraine; 0-14 days of headache per month). Categories of comorbid conditions included psychiatric, respiratory, cardiovascular, pain and 'other' such as obesity and diabetes., Results: Of 24 000 headache sufferers surveyed in 2005, 655 respondents had CM, and 11 249 respondents had EM. Compared with EM, respondents with CM had stastically significant lower levels of household income, were less likely to be employed full time and were more likely to be occupationally disabled. Those with CM were approximately twice as likely to have depression, anxiety and chronic pain. Respiratory disorders including asthma, bronchitis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and cardiac risk factors including hypertension, diabetes, high cholesterol and obesity, were also significantly more likely to be reported by those with CM., Discussion: Sociodemographic and comorbidity profiles of the CM population differ from the EM population on multiple dimensions, suggesting that CM and EM differ in important ways other than headache frequency.

Aim: To estimate the proportion of individuals with migraine using triptan therapy as a function of their cardiovascular (CV) profile and disease severity., Methods: As a part of the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention study, we identified migraineurs representative of the U.S. adult population. Triptan use was estimated as a function of presence of CV disease (CVD), of CV risk factors, and by level of migraine-related disability., Results: Our sample consists of 6102 individuals with migraine. Compared with migraineurs without risk factors for CVD, triptans were significantly less likely to be used in individuals with diabetes (11.5% vs 18.3%, OR = 0.6, 95% CI = 0.5-0.7), hypertension (14.8%, OR = 0.8, 0.7-0.9) and by smokers (12.9%, OR = 0.7, 0.6-0.8). Similar findings were seen for individuals with established CVD. As contrasted to individuals without CVD, those with myocardial infarct (8.5% vs 18.5%, OR = 0.4, 0.3-0.7), stroke (7%, OR = 0.6, 0.3-0.9) and heart surgery (9.3%, OR = 0.5, 0.4-0.7) were less likely to use triptans. Use of triptan increased as a function of disability regardless of CVD status or presence of CV risk factors., Conclusion: Triptan use is lower in those with vs without CV risk, suggesting that doctors and/or patients fear using triptans in individuals at risk to CVD. Furthermore, triptan use in those with established CVD increases with headache-related disability, suggesting that patients and providers balance risks and benefits. Additional and analytical data are needed on the safety of triptans in the setting of CVD risk. This study has not assessed adequacy of care.

Medication overuse headache (MOH) is now recognized as a biobehavioral disorder, a condition wherein emotion and pain are intermingled. This review discusses the steps to consider when treating this condition. The first step involves educating patients about MOH and the pathways to chronicity. The second step concerns working with patients to identify risk factors and behaviors that are present and contributing to the condition. The final step involves behavioral intervention. Examples for accomplishing each step are provided.

Background: Though symptomatic medication overuse is believed to play a major role in progression from episodic to chronic or transformed migraine (TM), population-based longitudinal data on these agents are limited., Objectives: To assess the role of specific classes of acute medications in the development of TM in episodic migraine (EM) sufferers after adjusting for other risk factors for headache progression., Methods: As a part of the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention study (AMPP), we initially surveyed a population sample of 120,000 individuals to identify a sample of migraineurs to be followed annually over 5 years. Using logistic and linear regression, we modeled the probability of transition from EM in 2005 to TM in 2006 in relation to medication use status at baseline. Adjustments were made for gender, headache frequency and severity, and prevention medication use., Results: Of 8219 individuals with EM in 2005, 209 (2.5%) had developed TM by 2006. Baseline headache frequency was a risk factor for TM. Using acetaminophen user as the reference group, individuals who used medications containing barbiturates (OR = 2.06, 95%CI = 1.3-3.1) or opiates (OR = 1.98, 95%CI = 1.4-2.2) were at increased risk of TM. A dose-response relationship was found for use of barbiturates. Use of triptans (OR = 1.25, 95%CI = 0.9-1.7) at baseline was not associated with prospective risk of TM. Overall, NSAIDs (OR = 0.85, 95%CI = 0.63-1.17) were not associated with TM. Indeed, NSAIDs were protective against transition to TM at low to moderate monthly headache days, but were associated with increased risk of transition to TM at high levels of monthly headache days., Conclusion: EM sufferers develop TM at the rate of 2.5% per year. Any use of barbiturates and opiates was associated with increased risk of TM after adjusting for covariates, while triptans were not. NSAIDs were protective or inducers depending on the headache frequency.