Search

Objective : The purpose of this study was to investigate the decision-making processes of physical therapists relating to evaluation and categorization of patients with headaches, including consistency with criteria proposed by the International Headache Society (IHS). Methods : A national online survey was distributed in cooperation with the Academy of Orthopaedic Physical Therapy of the American Physical Therapy Association. Three hypothetical patient case vignettes featuring headache disorders were used as assessment instruments. Additionally, data on physical therapist education, clinical experience, manual therapy training, self-efficacy, and familiarity & consistency with IHS criteria were collected. Physical therapist identification and valuation of clinical features of headache disorders were also examined in the decision-making processes. Results : Among the 384 respondents, 32.3% classified the tension-type headache case consistent with IHS criteria. The cervicogenic and migraine headache cases were classified at 54.8% and 41.7% consistent with IHS categories, respectively. Experienced clinicians and those with formal manual training categorized patient presentations with greater consistency. Clinician familiarity with IHS classification criteria was low with 73.6% collectively somewhat and not familiar, while 26.4% of physical therapists were self-described as very or moderately familiar. Discussion : Clinicians' headache categorization was significantly affected by symptom misattribution and weighting of individual examination findings. Weighting by practitioners of clinical features varied markedly with greatest emphasis being placed on detailed manual examination procedures, including passive intervertebral movements. Inconsistencies in valuation of clinical features in headache categorization suggest a need for further formal education in physical therapy educational curricula and in post-graduate education, including of IHS criteria and classification. Level of Evidence : 2a.

Migraine or headache is a common problem in the active duty population, in the recently deployed service members, and is a cardinal symptom of traumatic brain injury. While there is increasing appreciation of the clinical burden of post-traumatic headache (PTHA) in the military traumatic brain injury population, there remain significant research gaps related to the epidemiology of PTHA, including lack of understanding of natural history, whether there are predisposing factors that predict the development or prognosis of headache post trauma and, most basically, the features that distinguish PTHA from other forms of chronic headache. Although diagnostic criteria for PTHA are included in the International Classification of Headache Disorders, 2nd edition, revised, these criteria are somewhat arbitrary and were not empirically defined. This lack of precision about the PTHA phenotype limits the rigor of observational studies of PTH but does not appear to significantly hamper treatment, provided the treatment involves a multi-modality approach.

Certain migraines are labeled as refractory, but the entity lacks a well-accepted operational definition. This article summarizes the results of a survey sent to American Headache Society members to evaluate interest in a definition for RM and what were considered necessary criteria. Review of the literature, collaborative discussions and results of the survey contributed to the proposed definition for RM. We also comment on our considerations in formulating the criteria and any issues in making the criteria operational. For the proposed definition for RM and refractory chronic migraine, patients must meet the International Classification of Headache Disorders, Second Edition criteria for migraine or chronic migraine, respectively. Headaches need to cause significant interference with function or quality of life despite modification of triggers, lifestyle factors, and adequate trials of acute and preventive medicines with established efficacy. The definition requires that patients fail adequate trials of preventive medicines, alone or in combination, from at least 2 of 4 drug classes including: beta-blockers, anticonvulsants, tricyclics, and calcium channel blockers. Patients must also fail adequate trials of abortive medicines, including both a triptan and dihydroergotamine (DHE) intranasal or injectable formulation and either nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or combination analgesic, unless contraindicated. An adequate trial is defined as a period of time during which an appropriate dose of medication is administered, typically at least 2 months at optimal or maximum-tolerated dose, unless terminated early due to adverse effects. The definition also employs modifiers for the presence or absence of medication overuse, and with or without significant disability.

There are a number of reasons to attempt to define and classify refractory headache disorders. Particularly important are the potential benefits in the areas of research, treatment, and medical cost reimbursement. There are challenges in attempting to classify refractory forms of headaches, including the lack of biological or other objective markers and a lack of consensus among practitioners as to what qualifies as refractoriness, or even if a separate category for refractory migraine and other refractory headaches needs to be established. A definition of refractory migraine has been proposed by Schulman et al in this issue ("Defining Refractory Migraine [RM] and Refractory Chronic Migraine [RCM]: Proposed Criteria for the Refractory Headache Special Interests Section of the American Headache Society"), which should be tested for validity and usefulness. It seems reasonable to consider adding this defined syndrome to the International Classification of Headache Disorders, second edition (ICHD-II). In this article, options for adding refractory headache syndromes to the ICHD are discussed with pros and cons for each. Two "best" options for adding the disorder "refractory migraine" to the ICHD are presented along with an illustrative case example.

Headache is a common symptom described by patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). It is uncertain whether both the prevalence and phenotype of headache disorders seen in patients with SLE are similar to those in the general population. The current American College of Rheumatology (ACR) classification of headache disorders includes only five categories, included 'Intractable headache, non-specific', which is not further defined. The International Headache Society (IHS) has produced a classification which aims to include all recognized headache disorders. We compared the performance of the IHS and ACR criteria in 61 subjects with SLE. Whereas reference to the IHS criteria enabled classification of all headache disorders seen in the cohort, use of the ACR criteria resulted in failure to classify 22% of headache disorders. We suggest that the ACR criteria require revision. Until this is done, IHS criteria should be used in all future studies of headache in SLE.

The International Headache Society's (IHS) Classification of Headache Disorders, published in 1988, is largely responsible for stimulating the rapid scientific and therapeutic advances that have revolutionized the field of headache. By establishing consistent operational diagnostic criteria for primary and secondary headache disorders, the IHS Classification has facilitated epidemiological and genetic studies as well as the multinational clinical trials that provide the basis for our present treatment guidelines. Fifteen years after its original release, a revised 2nd edition has been unveiled. Modifications are small but significant. We hope to introduce clinicians to the salient changes in the 2nd edition by highlighting the newly included headache types, acknowledging the renamed headache types, and reviewing the modifications in diagnostic criteria for existing headache types. Physicians involved in the care of headache patients need to be aware of these changes and should continue to consult the IHS criteria to ensure accurate diagnosis, to continue to refine the diagnostic criteria, and to contribute to the body of knowledge necessary to make further advances in the classification as well as in the field of headache.

Headache is the most common neurologic complaint. Migraine is by far the most frequent headache type seen by office-based physicians.Migraine remains under-recognized, under-diagnosed, and therefore under-treated in everyday medical practice. With time severely restricted in primary care day-to-day practice, a user friendly approach to assessment of headaches and differentiation into the broad types of "worrisome headache," migraine, tension-type, and others is necessary. A consensus-based, practical, rapid, six essential-question screening technique is outlined.

Objective: We assessed the views of physicians interested in headache as to the diagnosis of the most commonly occurring and currently controversial headaches., Background: The International Headache Society (IHS) classification system has received wide professional endorsement and considerable empirical support, but in the United States, their adoption by clinicians may be proceeding more slowly. Questions remain, including what diagnostic criteria for migraine and tension-type headache clinicians may continue to favor over those outlined by the IHS, to what extent is the "transformed migraine" diagnosis used in clinical practice, and how is analgesic rebound headache diagnosed with regard to the various quantitative measures of analgesic use., Methods: Members of the American Headache Society rated the importance of IHS and non-IHS diagnostic criteria for migraine and tension-type headache and for analgesic rebound headache. Respondents also described their use of the proposed transformed migraine diagnosis., Results: Two-thirds (67.3%) of the respondents reported use of the IHS criteria or the IHS criteria in conjunction with clinical judgment. For migraine and tension-type headache, IHS criteria were rated with high importance, but some respondents reported using additional non-IHS diagnostic criteria and de-emphasizing certain IHS criteria. For chronic headache, almost two-thirds (63%) of respondents reported using the transformed migraine diagnosis. For analgesic rebound headache, respondents preferred to make the diagnosis based on medication consumption that is lower than amounts stipulated in the IHS classification system., Conclusions: There remains a number of physicians interested in headache who do not use the IHS classification system, who modify the IHS criteria in practice, and who use the "transformed migraine" diagnosis for patients with chronic daily headache.

Background: Adults with chronic daily headache often describe a transformation from episodic migraine and partial retention of migrainous features. Although chronic daily headache has not been investigated as carefully in the pediatric population, one study showed a predominance of coexisting daily headache and episodic migraine, without a clear history of transformation., Objective: To identify the clinical features of chronic daily headache in children and adolescents, to evaluate the efficacy of current headache classification criteria, and to compare the features of coexistent daily and episodic headaches so as to determine whether they represent separate syndromes or different stages in the "transformation" process., Design: We surveyed 189 consecutive patients, 18 years of age or younger, who presented for initial evaluation of daily or near daily headache at one of 9 tertiary headache clinics. Data were collected in semistructured interviews employing a standard questionnaire and analyzed using Statistical Analysis Systems and Stata statistical software computer programs., Results: Of the patients enrolled, 70% were female and 87% were white. Mean age was 13.0 +/- 3.1 years. Male gender was associated with a higher degree of reported disability. A family history of headache (typically migraine) was described in 79%. Use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs 5 days per week or more was reported by 44% of patients. The International Headache Society (IHS) criteria failed to classify 64% of patients and criteria proposed by Silberstein et al failed to classify 31% of patients. Participating physicians misclassified patients according to criteria of the IHS and Silberstein et al in one third of cases. Nearly one quarter of patients reported two separate headache types with distinguishing characteristics. "Baseline" headache was present 27.3 +/- 4.1 days per month with a mean pain intensity of 5.9 +/- 2.1 on a 10-point scale. Superimposed episodic headache occurred 4.7 +/- 3.8 days per month with a mean pain intensity of 8.4 +/- 1.4, and was more often accompanied by other migrainous symptoms. After logistic regression to control for pain intensity, the only statistically significant difference between the two headache types was a lower prevalence of tension-type head pain with the superimposed headache., Conclusions: Our data suggest that rather than having two coexistent headache types, children and adolescents with chronic daily headache have a single syndrome that, in many cases, will paroxysmally worsen and gather migrainous features.

Objective: To determine whether there are any differences in health-related quality of life between patients with migraine and those with transformed migraine., Background: There are no published reports comparing the health-related quality of life between patients with migraine and patients with transformed migraine., Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis examining the health-related quality of life of patients with transformed migraine and migraine seen at a specialty headache clinic. Data collected included the Short Form-36 (SF-36) and the Migraine Disability Assessment questionnaires as well as demographic information. Both of these forms are part of the initial evaluation at the headache clinic. A t test with Bonferroni correction was used to test for significant differences in the SF-36 domains between the groups., Results: Data were collected for 90 patients, 46 with transformed migraine and 44 with migraine. There were no significant differences between groups with respect to sex, race, or age. Over the last 90 days prior to their first visit, patients with transformed migraine reported having a headache an average of 69 days compared with patients with migraine who averaged 18 days with headache (P<.05). Compared with patients with migraine, patients with transformed migraine had statistically (P<.05) and clinically significant (difference >5 points) lower mean scores on seven of the eight SF-36 domains and both the mental and physical summary scores of the SF-36., Conclusions: The results of this study suggest that patients with transformed migraine have a lower health-related quality of life than patients with migraine. These findings indicate that the headache chronicity associated with transformed migraine has a significant influence on quality of life. The results highlight the importance of effective management of headaches to avoid the progression of migraine to the more disabling transformed migraine.