Search

Objective: To identify and disseminate research priorities for the headache field that should be areas of research focus during the next 10 years. Background: Establishing research priorities helps focus and synergize the work of headache investigators, allowing them to reach the most important research goals more efficiently and completely. Methods: The Headache Research Priorities organizing and executive committees and working group chairs led a multistakeholder and international group of experts to develop headache research priorities. The research priorities were developed and reviewed by clinicians, scientists, people with headache, representatives from headache organizations, health‐care industry representatives, and the public. Priorities were revised and finalized after receiving feedback from members of the research priorities working groups and after a public comment period. Results: Twenty‐five research priorities across eight categories were identified: human models, animal models, pathophysiology, diagnosis and management, treatment, inequities and disparities, research workforce development, and quality of life. The priorities address research models and methods, development and optimization of outcome measures and endpoints, pain and non‐pain symptoms of primary and secondary headaches, investigations into mechanisms underlying headache attacks and chronification of headache disorders, treatment optimization, research workforce recruitment, development, expansion, and support, and inequities and disparities in the headache field. The priorities are focused enough that they help to guide headache research and broad enough that they are widely applicable to multiple headache types and various research methods. Conclusions: These research priorities serve as guidance for headache investigators when planning their research studies and as benchmarks by which the headache field can measure its progress over time. These priorities will need updating as research goals are met and new priorities arise. Plain Language Summary: The American Headache Society led a large, international, multistakeholder process to identify headache research topics that should be prioritized during the next 10 years. With input from headache clinicians, scientists, people with headache, representatives from headache organizations, health‐care industry representatives, and the public, 25 research priorities within 8 categories were identified. These research priorities can help guide headache researchers when planning their studies and as benchmarks by which the headache field can measure its progress over time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Utilize machine learning models to identify factors associated with seeking medical care for migraine. Background: Migraine is a leading cause of disability worldwide, yet many people with migraine do not seek medical care. Methods: The web‐based survey, ObserVational survey of the Epidemiology, tReatment and Care Of MigrainE (US), annually recruited demographically representative samples of the US adult population (2018–2020). Respondents with active migraine were identified via a validated diagnostic questionnaire and/or a self‐reported medical diagnosis of migraine, and were then asked if they had consulted a healthcare professional for their headaches in the previous 12 months (i.e., "seeking care"). This included in‐person/telephone/or e‐visit at Primary Care, Specialty Care, or Emergency/Urgent Care locations. Supervised machine learning (Random Forest) and Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) algorithms identified 13/54 sociodemographic and clinical factors most associated with seeking medical care for migraine. Random Forest models complex relationships (including interactions) between predictor variables and a response. LASSO is also an efficient feature selection algorithm. Linear models were used to determine the multivariable association of those factors with seeking care. Results: Among 61,826 persons with migraine, the mean age was 41.7 years (±14.8) and 31,529/61,826 (51.0%) sought medical care for migraine in the previous 12 months. Of those seeking care for migraine, 23,106/31,529 (73.3%) were female, 21,320/31,529 (67.6%) were White, and 28,030/31,529 (88.9%) had health insurance. Severe interictal burden (assessed via the Migraine Interictal Burden Scale‐4, MIBS‐4) occurred in 52.8% (16,657/31,529) of those seeking care and in 23.1% (6991/30,297) of those not seeking care; similar patterns were observed for severe migraine‐related disability (assessed via the Migraine Disability Assessment Scale, MIDAS) (36.7% [11,561/31,529] vs. 14.6% [4434/30,297]) and severe ictal cutaneous allodynia (assessed via the Allodynia Symptom Checklist, ASC‐12) (21.0% [6614/31,529] vs. 7.4% [2230/30,297]). Severe interictal burden (vs. none, OR 2.64, 95% CI [2.5, 2.8]); severe migraine‐related disability (vs. little/none, OR 2.2, 95% CI [2.0, 2.3]); and severe ictal allodynia (vs. none, OR 1.7, 95% CI [1.6, 1.8]) were strongly associated with seeking care for migraine. Conclusions: Seeking medical care for migraine is associated with higher interictal burden, disability, and allodynia. These findings could support interventions to promote care‐seeking among people with migraine, encourage assessment of these factors during consultation, and prioritize these domains in selecting treatments and measuring their benefits. Plain Language Summary: In this study, we looked at factors that related to a person's decision to seek medical care for migraine in a representative sample of over 60,000 adults with migraine in the United States. We found that only about half (51.0%) of the participants reported seeking care for migraine. We also found that people were more likely to seek medical care when migraine got in the way of their lives during and between migraine attacks, and when they had allodynia (pain from stimuli that do not normally cause pain). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

Background: This study reviewed migraine prevalence and disability gathered through epidemiologic survey studies in the United States conducted over the past three decades. We summarized these studies and evaluated changing patterns of disease prevalence and disability. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of US studies addressing the prevalence, disability, and/or burden of migraine, including both episodic migraine (EM) and chronic migraine (CM). A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) protocol was used in conjunction with the PubMed search engine. Eligible studies were published before February 2022, were conducted in the United States, included representative samples, and used a case definition of migraine based on the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD). The primary measure of disease burden was the Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS). The MIDAS measures days lost due to migraine over 3 months in three domains and defines groups with moderate (Grade III) or severe disability (Grade IV) using cut‐scores. Results: Of the 1609 identified records, 26 publications from 11 US population‐based studies met eligibility criteria. The prevalence of migraine in the population has remained relatively consistent for the past 30 years: ranging from 11.7% to 14.7% overall, 17.1% to 19.2% in women, and 5.6% to 7.2% in men in the studies reviewed. CM prevalence is 0.91% (1.3% among women and 0.5% of men) in adults and 0.8% in adolescents. The proportion of people with migraine and moderate‐to‐severe MIDAS disability (Grades III–IV), has trended upward across studies from 22.0% in 2005 to 39.0% in 2012, to 43.2% in 2016, and 42.4% in 2018. A consistently higher proportion of women were assigned MIDAS Grades III/IV relative to men. Conclusion: The prevalence of migraine in the United States has remained stable over the past three decades while migraine‐related disability has increased. The disability trend could reflect changes in reporting, study methodology, social and societal changes, or changes in exacerbating or remediating factors that make migraine more disabling, among other hypotheses. These issues merit further investigation. Plain Language Summary: We reviewed 11 population‐based studies that adhered to the International Classification of Headache Disorders to examine the prevalence and burden of migraine in the United States. While the prevalence of migraine has remained stable at ~12% of adults for the past 30 years (with higher rates in women), the burden of migraine, including disability and impact on work, academics, and social life, appears to be increasing. The escalating burden of migraine may result from factors like increased headache frequency or changes in study methodology, indicating a need for more population studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

INTRODUCTION: Executive functioning and processing speed are crucial elements of neuropsychological assessment. To meet the needs of the Hispanic/Latino population, we aimed to provide normative data for the Digit Symbol Substitution (DSS) test. METHODS: The target population for the Study of Latinos‐Investigation of Neurocognitive Aging included six heritage backgrounds (n = 6177). Average age was 63.4 ± 8.3 years, 54.5% were female, and mean education was 11.0 ± 4.7 years. Participants were administered the DSS as part of a larger battery. Heritage‐adjusted DSS scores, and percentile cut‐points were created using survey‐adjusted regression and quantile regression models. RESULTS: Age, education, sex, heritage, and language preference were associated with DSS scores. DISCUSSION: Significant correlates of DSS performance should be considered when evaluating cognitive performance. Representative DSS norms for Hispanics/Latinos will advance assessment and accuracy of neurocognitive disorder diagnosis in clinical practice. To facilitate interpretation, we provide norms to reduce test biases and developed an online dashboard. Highlights: Normative data for the Digit Symbol Substitution (DSS) for diverse Hispanic/Latino adults: Results from the Study of Latinos‐Investigation of Neurocognitive Aging (SOL‐INCA) This study is the first to develop norms for the DSS test across four regions of the United States.Factors such as age, education, sex, and Hispanic/Latino heritage and language preference are associated with differences in executive functioning and information processing speed.We created norms and an online dashboard (https://solincalab.shinyapps.io/dsst%5fshiny/) providing an easily accessible tool to evaluate processing speed and executive functioning in Hispanic/Latino adults. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Individuals with migraine frequently experience pre- and post-headache symptoms. This analysis aimed to characterize the relative frequency and burden of pre- and post-headache symptoms in people with migraine using data collected through the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes – International Study. Methods: This cross-sectional, observational, web-based survey was conducted in 2021–2022 in Canada, France, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Respondents who met modified International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition, criteria were offered the opportunity to participate. Information collected included migraine-related disability, depression/anxiety symptoms, cutaneous allodynia, activity limitations, and acute treatment optimization. Respondents indicated how often they had pre- or post-headache symptoms using a 5-point scale, ranging from 0 to 4, with a rating of 2 or higher classified as a pre- or post-headache symptom case. Modeling was used to examine relationships with monthly headache days (MHDs) and activity limitations during pre-headache and post-headache phases. Results: Among a total of 14,492 respondents, pre-headache symptoms were reported by 66.9%, while post-headache symptoms were reported by 60.2%. Both pre-headache and post-headache symptoms were reported by 49.5% of respondents, only pre-headache by 17.4%, only post-headache by 10.7%, and neither pre- nor post-headache symptoms by 22.4%. Compared with respondents who experienced only pre- or post-headache symptoms, respondents who experienced both pre- and post-headache symptoms had the highest rates of 4–7, 8–14, and ≥ 15 monthly headache days (23.1%, 14.1%, and 10.9%, respectively). Of respondents with both pre- and post-headache symptoms, 58.5% reported moderate-to-severe disability, 47.7% reported clinically significant symptoms of depression, 49.0% reported clinically significant symptoms of anxiety, and 63.8% reported cutaneous allodynia with headache (ASC-12). Moderate-to-severe activity limitations were reported during the pre-headache (29.5%) and post-headache phases (27.2%). For all outcomes modeled, after controlling for covariates, having pre-headache symptoms, post-headache symptoms, or both were associated with worse outcomes than having neither. Conclusions: Pre- and post-headache phases of migraine are common, carry unrecognized burden, and may be a target for treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reports that NPWH is more prevalent in people with migraine compared to those with non-migraine headaches, with significant impacts on disability, depression, anxiety, and work productivity. Topics include the frequency and impact of NPWH in migraine sufferers, its association with increased disease burden and reduced treatment response, and the variation in NPWH impact across different countries, notably Japan.

Objective: To identify predictors of acute treatment response for nonprescription (over‐the‐counter [OTC]) medications among people with migraine and develop improved models for predicting treatment response. Background: Pain freedom and sustained pain relief are important priorities in the acute treatment of migraine. OTC medications are widely used for migraine; however, it is not clear which treatment works best for each patient without going through the trial and error process. Methods: A prediction model development study was completed using the 2006 American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention Study survey, from participants who were aged ≥18, met criteria and headache day frequency for episodic migraine, did not take prescription medication for migraine, and used ≥1 of the following acute migraine medication classes: acetaminophen, aspirin, NSAIDs, or caffeine containing combination products (CCP). Two items from the Migraine Treatment Optimization Questionnaire were used to evaluate treatment response, adequate 2‐h pain freedom (2hPF) and 24‐h pain relief (24hPR), which were defined by a response to treatment ≥half the time at 2 h and 24 h post treatment, respectively. We identified predictors of adequate treatment response and developed models to predict probability of treatment response to each medication class. Results: The sample included 3852 participants (3038 [79.0%] females) with an average age of 45.0 years (SD = 12.8). Only 1602/3852 (41.6%) and 1718/3852 (44.6%) of the participants reported adequate 2hPF and 24hPR, respectively. Adequate treatment‐response was significantly predicted by lower average headache pain intensity, less cutaneous allodynia, and lower depressive symptom scores. Lower migraine symptom severity was predictive of adequate 2hPF and fewer monthly headache days was predictive of adequate 24hPR. Among participants reporting OTC monotherapy (n = 2168, 56.3%) individuals taking CCP were more likely to have adequate 2hPF (OR = 1.55, 95% CI 1.23–1.95) and 24hPR (OR = 1.79, 95% CI 1.18–1.88) in comparison with those taking acetaminophen. Predictive models were modestly predictive of responders to OTC medications (c‐statistics = 0.65; 95% CI 0.62–0.68). Conclusion: These results show that response to acute migraine treatments is not optimized in the majority of people with migraine treating with OTC medications. Predictive models can improve our ability to choose the best therapeutic option for individuals with episodic migraine and increase the proportion of patients with optimized response to treatments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The objective of this study was to determine the associations among migraine disability assessment scores, healthcare resource utilization (HCRU; medical visits and pharmacy use) and direct medical costs among people with episodic migraine in a real‐world setting. Background: Migraine is a public health concern associated with a substantial economic burden in the United States. However, the association between migraine disability and direct medical costs among people with migraine is unknown. Method: This retrospective, cohort study used claims and electronic health record data from the Decision Resources Group database. Adults with migraine with or without aura, defined by International Classification of Disease Revision 9 (ICD‐9) or ICD Revision 10 (ICD‐10) codes, and a completed Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS) questionnaire from January 2016 to December 2018 were included (chronic migraine codes not included). The associations of MIDAS score with the cost of HCRU for the 6 months after MIDAS assessment were explored. Results were stratified by treatment setting. Results: Among 7662 included patients, MIDAS scores were distributed as: 3348 (43.7%; I, little/none), 1107 (14.4%; II, mild), 1225 (16.0%; III, moderate), 893 (11.7%; IVa, severe), and 1089 (14.2%; IVb, very severe). Worsening disability was associated with higher medical costs (adjusted from a multivariable model). In the primary care setting, healthcare visit costs were $206 (95% confidence interval: $144–294) for grade I and $631 ($384–1036) for grade IVb patients; corresponding pharmacy costs were $203 (grade I; $136–301) and $719 (grade IVb; $410–1259). For specialty care (e.g., neurologist), healthcare visits cost $509 ($411–629) for grade I and $885 ($634–1236) for grade IVb patients; corresponding pharmacy costs were $494 (grade I; $378–645) and $1020 (grade IVb; $643–1620). Conclusion: Higher levels of migraine‐related disability (MIDAS assessed) are associated with increased HCRU costs among Americans with episodic migraine. Migraine disability assessment could be useful in the development, testing, and prescription of cost‐effective treatments for people with high migraine‐related disability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic is an ongoing global health crisis that has had a range of impacts on people living with migraine. Methods: Qualitative interviews performed as part of the Migraine Clinical Outcome Assessment System project, a multi‐stage Food and Drug Administration–grant funded program to develop a patient‐centered core set of outcome measures for use in migraine clinical trials, offered an opportunity to explore the experience of living with migraine during the pandemic as well as to examine whether migraine treatment priorities, symptoms, and associated disability changed due to the pandemic. Semi‐structured interviews were conducted in the United States between the summer and fall of 2020 with 40 individuals with self‐reported, medically diagnosed migraine who self‐reported that they had not tested positive for or been diagnosed with COVID‐19. Results: Seventy percent (n = 28) of the sample reported ≥1 pandemic‐related impact on their life with migraine. Fourteen participants reported both positive and negative impacts, twelve reported negative impacts only, and two reported positive impacts only. Among those reporting ≥1 pandemic‐related impact, nine participants (32%) reported more frequent and five (17%) reported less frequent migraine attacks. Other negative impacts included interrupted medical care (n = 9; 32%), and greater stress (n = 13; 46%). The most frequent positive impact reported was greater access to health care (n = 8; 29%). Ictal and interictal symptoms were not noted to change due to the pandemic, but some respondents reported less disability due to increased flexibility of schedules and reduced expectations. Treatment priorities did not change due to the pandemic. Conclusion: The global COVID‐19 pandemic has resulted in both negative and positive impacts for people living with migraine. Lessons to be considered when moving into a post‐pandemic world include benefits of and satisfaction with telehealth and the benefits and importance of healthy lifestyle habits and flexibility such as improved sleep, reduced stress, and fewer social expectations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The ObserVational survey of the Epidemiology, tReatment and Care of MigrainE (OVERCOME; United States) study is a multicohort, longitudinal web survey that assesses symptomatology, consulting, diagnosis, treatment, and impact of migraine in the United States. Background: Regularly updating population‐based views of migraine in the United States provides a method for assessing the quality of ongoing migraine care and identifying unmet needs. Methods: The OVERCOME (US) 2018 migraine cohort involved: (I) creating a demographically representative sample of US adults using quota sampling (n = 97,478), (II) identifying people with active migraine in the past year via a validated migraine diagnostic questionnaire and/or self‐reported medical diagnosis of migraine (n = 24,272), and (III) assessing consultation, diagnosis, and treatment of migraine (n = 21,143). The current manuscript evaluated whether those with low frequency episodic migraine (LFEM; 0–3 monthly headache days) differed from other categories on outcomes of interest. Results: Among the migraine cohort (n = 21,143), 19,888 (94.1%) met our International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition‐based case definition of migraine and 12,905 (61.0%) self‐reported a medical diagnosis of migraine. Respondents' mean (SD) age was 42.2 (15.0) years; 15,697 (74.2%) were women. Having at least moderate disability was common (n = 8965; 42.4%) and around half (n = 10,783; 51.0%) had consulted a medical professional for migraine care in the past year. Only 4792 (22.7%) of respondents were currently using a triptan. Overall, 8539 (40.4%) were eligible for migraine preventive medication and 3555 (16.8%) were currently using migraine preventive medication. Those with LFEM differed from moderate and high frequency episodic migraine and chronic migraine on nearly all measures of consulting, diagnosis, and treatment. Conclusion: The OVERCOME (US) 2018 cohort revealed slow but steady progress in diagnosis and preventive treatment of migraine. However, despite significant impact among the population, many with migraine have unmet needs related to consulting for migraine, migraine diagnosis, and getting potentially beneficial migraine treatment. Moreover, it demonstrated the heterogeneity and varying unmet needs within episodic migraine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives The purpose of this study was to evaluate the hypothesis that chronic and acculturative stress would be negatively associated with neurocognitive function among middle aged to older Hispanics/Latinos. Method Our analytic sample consisted of 3,265 participants (mean age = 56.7 (±0.24)) from the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos who participated in its Sociocultural Ancillary Study. During the baseline phase of this project, participants were assessed on multiple domains of neurocognitive function, and completed self-report measures of chronic and acculturative stress. Results Each standard deviation increase in chronic stress was associated with lower performance in a verbal learning task (B = −.17, 95% CI [−.32, −.01]); this association was no longer significant after adjusting for mental and physical health symptoms, including depression and anxiety symptoms, and cardiovascular health. A standard deviation increase in acculturative stress was associated with poorer performance in all cognitive measures (B s range = −.13 to −1.03). Associations of acculturation stress with psychomotor speed, verbal learning, and word fluency remained significant after adjusting for mental and physical health symptoms. Discussion Our results suggest that mental and physical health may help explain some cross-sectional associations between stress and cognition and highlight the need to examine culture-specific psychosocial stressors to better understand the context of psychosocial risk factors for neurocognitive performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: We sought to assess factors associated with the frequency of self‐reported prescription opioid use in persons with migraine, including demographic variables, comorbidities, headache characteristics, and patterns of consultation. Background: Despite the dose‐dependent effect of opioids on migraine progression and the association with negative outcomes, migraine treatment often includes opioids. The Migraine in America Symptoms and Treatment Study focuses on individuals with migraine who receive prescription acute medications, including those receiving and those not receiving opioids. Methods: This web‐based panel survey identified people in the United States with migraine using a validated screener. This analysis stratified people with migraine into 4 groups based on days of monthly opioid use: non‐opioid users, ≤3 days, 4‒9 days, and ≥10 days per month. Results: Of 15,133 respondents with migraine, 4701 (31%) reported acute prescription medication use for headache/migraine in the previous 3 months (mean age 45 years, 71.6% [3367/4701] female), of whom 32.5% (1528/4701) reported opioid use. About one‐third of respondents with primary care or neurology consults in the prior 6 months reported receiving an opioid, and more than half of respondents (209/391, 53.5%) with a pain clinic consultation did so. Models compared those using opioids ≤3 days/month (879/4701, 18.7%), 4‒9 days/month (304/4701, 6.5%), ≥10 days/month (345/4701, 7.3%) to non‐opioid users (3173/4701, 67.5%). Compared to non‐opioid users, infrequent users (≤3 days/month) were more likely to be male and less likely to have chronic migraine or to screen positive for anxiety and depression; and frequent opioid users (the 4‒9 days/month and the ≥10 days/month groups) were more likely to be male, to smoke, to be obese, to report greater pain interference, to have moderate to severe disability, to have symptoms of anxiety and depression, to use fewer triptans and nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs, and to have poor acute treatment optimization. Conclusion: Among prescription medication users, this cross‐sectional analysis shows that increasing use of prescription opioids is associated with male gender, chronic migraine, more severe disability, anxiety and depression, poor acute treatment optimization, and treatment in a pain clinic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Migraine has many presumed comorbidities which have rarely been compared between samples with and without migraine. Examining the association between headache pain intensity and monthly headache day (MHD) frequency with migraine comorbidities is novel and adds to our understanding of migraine comorbidity. Methods: The MAST Study is a prospective, web-based survey that identified US population samples of persons with migraine (using modified International Classification of Headache Disorders-3 beta criteria) and without migraine. Eligible migraine participants averaged ≥1 MHDs over the prior 3 months. Comorbidities "confirmed by a healthcare professional diagnosis" were endorsed by respondents from a list of 21 common cardiovascular, neurologic, psychiatric, sleep, respiratory, dermatologic, pain and medical comorbidities. Multivariable binary logistic regression calculated odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals for each condition between the two groups adjusting for sociodemographics. Modeling within the migraine cohort assessed rates of conditions as a function of headache pain intensity, MHD frequency, and their combination. Results: Analyses included 15,133 people with migraine (73.0% women, 77.7% White, mean age 43 years) and 77,453 controls (46.4% women, 76.8% White, mean age 52 years). People with migraine were significantly (P < 0.001) more likely to report insomnia (OR 3.79 [3.6, 4.0]), depression (OR 3.18 [3.0, 3.3]), anxiety (OR 3.18 [3.0 3.3]), gastric ulcers/GI bleeding (OR 3.11 [2.8, 3.5]), angina (OR 2.64 [2.4, 3.0]) and epilepsy (OR 2.33 [2.0, 2.8]), among other conditions. Increasing headache pain intensity was associated with comorbidities related to inflammation (psoriasis, allergy), psychiatric disorders (depression, anxiety) and sleep conditions (insomnia). Increasing MHD frequency was associated with increased risk for nearly all conditions and most prominent among those with comorbid gastric ulcers/GI bleeding, diabetes, anxiety, depression, insomnia, asthma and allergies/hay fever. Conclusions: In regression models controlled for sociodemographic variables, all conditions studied were reported more often by those with migraine. Whether entered into the models separately or together, headache pain intensity and MHD frequency were associated with increased risk for many conditions. Future work is required to understand the causal sequence of relationships (direct causality, reverse causality, shared underlying predisposition), the potential confounding role of healthcare professional consultation and treatment, and potential detection bias. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To characterize unmet treatment needs in a sample of Migraine in America Symptoms and Treatment (MAST) Study participants using oral, acute prescription migraine medications. Background: The MAST Study is a 2017 study of US adults with migraine that profiles current treatment patterns and identifies and quantifies unmet treatment needs. Methods: Cross‐sectional data from an online survey of US adults meeting ICHD‐3 beta criteria for migraine. For inclusion in this paper, respondents self‐reported a history of 3 or more monthly headache days (MHDs) in the past 3 months and at least 1 MHD in the past 30 days, and current use of orally administered acute prescription medication for headache. Three domains of unmet need were identified: inadequate treatment response (ie, inadequate 2‐hour pain freedom, recurrence within 24 hours of initial relief), demanding attack characteristics (rapid onset of attack, headache associated with sleep), and unique patient characteristics (opioid or barbiturate overuse, cardiovascular comorbidity). Sociodemographics, oral medication use, and coexisting conditions and symptoms (ie, level of treatment optimization, psychological symptoms, attack‐related cutaneous allodynia, and migraine symptom severity) were assessed for each domain and by the number of unmet need domains. Results: Overall, 15,133 respondents met inclusion criteria, 26.0% (3930/15,133) reported current use of oral acute prescription medication to treat headache. Eligible participants had a mean age of 45.0 years, 73.6% [2892/3930] were women and 81.1% [3186/3930]) were White. A total of 95.8% (3765/3930) of respondents had at least 1 unmet acute treatment need; 89.5% (3516/3930) reported demanding attack characteristics, 74.1% (2912/3930) reported inadequate treatment response, and 16.1% (634/3930) presented with unique patient characteristics. Common areas of unmet need were rapid headache onset (65.3% [2567/3930]), moderate to severe disability (55.6% [2187/3930]), inadequate 2‐hours pain freedom (49.0% [1892/3930]), and headache recurrence within 24 hours (38.0% [1493/3930]). An increasing number of unmet treatment need domains was associated with worsening psychological symptoms, attack‐related cutaneous allodynia and migraine symptom severity. Conclusion: Nearly all MAST Study respondents using acute oral prescription medications for migraine reported at least 1 unmet treatment need. As unmet needs increased, so did coexisting conditions and symptom severity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To assess the effects of migraine on important life domains and compare differences between respondents with episodic and chronic migraine and between sexes. Background: Migraine is associated with a substantial personal and societal burden and can also affect the interpersonal dynamics, psychological health and well‐being, and financial stability of the entire family of the person with migraine. Methods: The Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) Study is a prospective, longitudinal, Web‐based survey study undertaken between September 2012 and November 2013 in a systematic U.S. sample of people meeting modified International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition migraine criteria: 19,891 respondents were invited to complete the Family Burden Module, which assessed the perceived impact of migraine on family relationships and life, career and finances, and overall health. Respondents were stratified by episodic migraine (<15 headache days/month) and chronic migraine (≥15 headache days/month) and sex for comparisons. Results: A total of 13,064 respondents (episodic migraine: 11,944 [91.4%]; chronic migraine: 1120 [8.6%]) provided valid data. Approximately 16.8% of respondents not currently in a romantic relationship (n = 536 of 3189) and 17.8% of those in a relationship but not living together (n = 236 of 1323) indicated that headaches had contributed to relationship problems. Of those in a relationship and living together (n = 8154), 3.2% reported that they chose not to have children, delayed having children or had fewer children because of migraine (n = 260; episodic migraine: n = 193 of 7446 [2.6%]; chronic migraine: n = 67 of 708 [9.5%]; P < .001). Of individuals responding to career/finance items (n = 13,061/13,036), 32.7% indicated that headaches negatively affected ≥1 career area (n = 4271; episodic migraine: n = 3617 of 11,942 [30.3%]; chronic migraine: n = 654 of 1119 [58.4%]), and 32.1% endorsed worry about long‐term financial security due to migraine (n = 4180; episodic migraine: n = 3539 of 11,920 [29.7%]; chronic migraine: n = 641 of 1116 [57.4%]). Conclusions: Migraine can negatively affect many important aspects of life including marital, parenting, romantic and family relationships, career/financial achievement and stability, and overall health. Reported burden was consistently greater among those with chronic migraine than among people with episodic migraine; however, few differences were seen between the sexes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To summarize the baseline methods for the Migraine in America Symptoms and Treatment (MAST) Study and evaluate gender differences in sociodemographics and headache features; consultation and diagnosis patterns; and patterns of acute and preventive treatment use for migraine among study participants. Background: The MAST Study is a longitudinal, internet‐based panel study of symptoms, approaches to management, and unmet treatment needs among US adults with migraine. This analysis focuses on the initial cross‐sectional survey, conducted beginning in 2016, and is intended to update results from earlier national epidemiologic surveys of people with migraine in the United States. Methods: Respondents to the MAST Study were recruited from a US nationwide online research panel. Stratified random sampling identified a representative cohort of adults (aged ≥18 years). We administered a validated diagnostic screener based on modified ICHD‐3 beta criteria to identify individuals with migraine averaging at least 1 monthly headache day (MHD) over the previous 3 months. A baseline assessment evaluated sociodemographic and headache features, patterns of consultation and diagnosis, and use of acute and preventive medications for migraine. Frequency data and chi‐square contrasts (P < .05) were used to compare respondents based on gender. Results: Baseline survey data (N = 95,821) identified 18,353 respondents who met criteria for migraine, including 15,133 (women n = 11,049, men n = 4084) reporting at least 1 MHD for the preceding 3 months. The mean age of the sample was 43.1 (13.6) years; 73.0% of respondents were women, and 81.0% were Caucasian. Compared with men, women were younger (46.1 vs 42.0 years; P < .001); had more MHDs (5.6 vs 5.3; P < .001); and were more likely to report moderate or severe headache‐related disability (45.9% vs 35.8%; P < .001) and cutaneous allodynia (43.7% vs 29.5%; P < .001). The lifetime rate of medical consultation for headache was 79.8% overall and slightly higher in women than in men. Women were more likely than men to have been diagnosed with migraine (48.3% vs 38.8%, P < .001). While 95.1% of people with migraine currently used acute treatment, the majority (58.9%) used over‐the‐counter (OTC) drugs to the exclusion of prescription drugs, while 11.3% used exclusively prescription drugs, and 20.5% used both. Among acute prescription medication users, women were more likely than men to take triptans (17.7% vs 14.3%, P < .001), while men were more likely than women to take opioids (14.5% vs 9.2%, P < .001). Oral formulations were used predominately (92.7% of the medication users), but men were more likely to use nasal sprays (13.6% vs 9.4%, P < .001) and injectables (7.9% vs 3.4%, P < .001). Men (14.5%) were also significantly more likely than women (10.4%) to be taking daily oral preventive medication (P < .001). Conclusions: The MAST Study identified a large sample of women and men with migraine from a sampling frame that broadly resembles the US population. Low participation rate increases the risk of response bias, however, comparisons with Census data and prior population studies for the demographic and headache characteristics of the current sample suggest that findings are generalizable to the population of people with migraine. Women had more MHDs than men, and they were more likely to report migraine‐related disability and cutaneous allodynia. The lifetime consultation rate for headache was relatively high, but many with migraine symptoms reported never having received a diagnosis of migraine from a healthcare professional. Acute prescription and preventive migraine treatments are underused. Migraine persists as an underdiagnosed and undertreated public health problem in 2018, and there are many opportunities to improve the diagnosis and treatment of people with this painful, disabling condition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To identify natural subgroups of people with migraine based on profiles of comorbidities and concomitant conditions, hereafter referred to as comorbidities. Background: Migraine is a heterogeneous disease. Identifying natural subgroups (endophenotypes) may facilitate biological and genetic characterization and the development of personalized treatment. Methods: The Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes Study is a prospective web‐based survey study designed to characterize the course of migraine and related comorbidities in a systematic US sample of people with migraine. Respondents were asked if they ever had a specific comorbidity and, if present, whether the comorbidity was confirmed/diagnosed by a “doctor”; 62 comorbidities were available for analysis. Latent class analysis (LCA) modeling determined the optimal number of classes and a parsimonious set of comorbidities. Results: Of the 12,810 respondents with migraine, 11,837 reported ≥1 comorbidity and were included in this analysis. After statistical analysis and clinical judgment reduced the number of comorbidities, we selected an 8‐class model based on 22 comorbidities. Each class had a distinct pattern summarized as follows: Class 1, Most Comorbidities; Class 2, Respiratory/Psychiatric; Class 3, Respiratory/Pain; Class 4, Respiratory; Class 5, Psychiatric; Class 6, Cardiovascular; Class 7, Pain; Class 8, Fewest Comorbidities. The distribution of individuals across models was variable, with one‐third of respondents in Class 8 (Fewest Comorbidities) and <10% in Class 1 (Most Comorbidities). Demographic and headache characteristics, not used in assigning class membership, varied across classes. For example, comparing Class 1 (Most Comorbidities) and Class 8 (Fewest Comorbidities), Class 1 had a greater proportion of individuals with severe disability (Migraine Disability Assessment grade IV; 48.1% vs 22.3% of overall individuals) and higher rates of allodynia (67.6% vs 47.0%), medication overuse (36.4% vs 15.0%), chronic migraine (23.1% vs 9.1%), and aura (40.1% vs 28.8%). Conclusions: LCA modeling identified 8 natural subgroups of persons with migraine based on comorbidity profiles. These classes show differences in demographic and headache features not used to form the classes. Subsequent research will assess prognostic and biologic differences among the classes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To assess physician‐patient communication and identify the frequency of use of specific communication techniques by analyzing recordings of routinely scheduled medical encounters for patients with clinician‐identified chronic migraine. Background: Chronic migraine is an under‐diagnosed, under‐treated, and highly burdensome disease. Effective medical communication is integral to optimal medical care, including providing accurate diagnoses, creating effective treatment plans, and enhancing patient adherence. Communication patterns during office visits may be a target for intervention to improve outcomes for people with chronic migraine. Design: This was a prospective, observational study based on analysis of audio recordings collected during neurologist‐patient chronic migraine dialogues. Methods: Twenty neurologists from a US neurology panel maintained by Verilogue, Inc., a research organization specializing in healthcare dialogues, were invited to identify patients with chronic migraine and record clinical encounters with their patients. Both new patient visits and follow‐up visits were included in this analysis. Neurologist‐patient dialogues were audio‐recorded, anonymized, transcribed, and analyzed by a sociolinguist for the presence of prespecified communication parameters, strategies, and specific language indicative of optimal migraine‐related medical care. Results: Fourteen out of the 20 invited neurologists (70.0%) accepted the study invitation and recorded 35 encounters with patients eligible for the study. The patient sample was 91.4% female (n = 32/35), with a mean age of 46 years. On average, there were 17 headache‐related questions per visit; 82.0% of questions were closed‐ended (n = 369/450). Headache/migraine frequency was elicited in 77.1% of the dialogues (n = 27/35), but headache days per month was assessed in only a single dialogue. Only one neurologist utilized the ask‐tell‐ask technique. Headache‐related disability was discussed in 22.9%of the dialogues (n = 8/35), with only one using open‐ended questions. None of the dialogues discussed ictal vs interictal headache‐related disability. Chronic migraine was mentioned in 8.6% of dialogues (n = 3/35) and treatment plans were discussed in 37.1% of the dialogues (n = 13/35). Conclusions: Results from this preliminary study showed that the majority of the neurologist‐chronic migraine patient dialogues did not assess elements crucial for diagnosis and treatment (eg, headache days per month and headache related disability) or use standard communication techniques (eg, open‐ended questions, ask‐tell‐ask). We recommend intervention studies designed to assess the benefits of improved communication on diagnostic accuracy, treatment decisions, and patient reported outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Cardiovascular (CV) events, conditions, and procedures (ECPs) are common in persons with migraine and are a contraindication to triptan and ergot use. In a prior study, we estimated that there are 2.6 million American adults with episodic migraine (EM) who have had CV ECPs. However, the prior analysis did not assess persons with migraine without CV ECPs who are at high risk for a first cardiovascular disease (CVD) event. Objectives To use the Framingham nonlaboratory CVD events risk equation to estimate the number of individuals with EM who are at elevated risk for a first CVD event in the next 10 years using data from the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention Study, and then to extrapolate the findings to the US population to estimate the scope of people with EM for whom triptan and ergot therapies may be problematic. Methods Data from respondents to the 2009 American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention (AMPP) Study questionnaire aged ≥22 who met criteria and headache day frequency for EM were included in this cross-sectional analysis. Ten-year, first CVD event risk was calculated using the nonlaboratory Framingham CV disease risk score (FRS). Variables were collected via respondent self-report and included sex, age, height, and weight to calculate body mass index (BMI), smoking status, and the presence of hypertension and diabetes among other variables. Standard FRS cut scores of ≥21 for women and ≥16 for men were used, which indicate a 30% or greater risk of a first CVD event in the next 10 years. History of CV ECPs was collected via self-report of ever having the ECP and for events and conditions that were diagnosed by a physician. We applied rates of positive ECPs and rates of high FRS to age and sex stratified estimates of the number of people with EM in the US derived from 2015 US Census data to estimate rates of both in the population. Results The AMPP Study analysis sample included 5227 women and 1496 men with EM. Results showed that 69.5% of women and 73.4% of men had at least one CV risk factor from the FRS, 38.9% of women and 41.6% of men had ≥2 risk factors, and 18.6% of women and 19.1% of men had ≥3 risk factors. The proportion of women with high FRS was 0% for those aged 22-39, 0.8% (95%CI: 0.5-1.2%) among 40- to 59-year-olds and 15.2% (95% CI: 13.3-17.4%) among the ≥60 age group. For men, the corresponding proportions were 0, 7.3% (95% CI: 5.7-9.4%), and 53.0% (95% CI: 4.7-58.1%). Projecting to a national US sample, the number of persons with EM and high FRS was 403,000 for women and 510,000 for men. The proportion of women and men at high risk for future CV events based on a prior CV ECP, a high FRS or both increased with age from 20-39 (women 4.5%, men 4.2%), 40-59 (women 11.8%, men 18.6%), and ≥60 (women 31.2%, men 61.8%). An estimated 141,000 men aged 40-59 and 187,000 aged ≥60 and 34,000 women aged 40-59 and 181,000 women aged ≥60 in the US population with EM have not had a CV ECP but are at increased risk for a future CV event within the next 10 years based upon their FRS alone. Conclusion Among people with EM in the US population, the number of women and men with relative contraindications to triptans and ergots based on a high FRS includes over 900,000 women and men. This includes more than half a million individuals with EM who have not had a prior CV ECP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective In a population sample of persons with migraine treating with a single category of acute migraine medication, to identify rates and factors associated with acute treatment outcomes, including 2-hour pain freedom (2hPF), 24-hour pain response (24hPR), and 24-hour sustained pain response (24hSPR). Key predictors include acute treatment type (triptans and other medication categories), the influence of allodynia on response to medication, and the interaction between medication category and presence of allodynia in response to treatment among people with migraine. Background Cutaneous allodynia was previously associated with inadequate 2hPF, 24hPR, and 24hSPR (sustained response at 24 hours among those with adequate 2hPF) among people with migraine in the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention (AMPP) Study. Methods The AMPP Study obtained data from a representative US sample of persons with migraine by mailed questionnaire. The 2006 survey included 8233 people with migraine aged 18 or over who completed the Migraine Treatment Optimization Questionnaire (mTOQ). mTOQ was used to assess acute treatment outcomes including 2hPF, 24hPR, and 24hSPR. Eligible individuals used only a single category of acute prescription migraine treatments (n = 5236, 63.6%). This sample was stratified into 5 categories of type of acute prescription headache medication used (triptans, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, barbiturate-combinations, opioids, and opioid combinations and ergot alkaloids). Separate binary logistic regression models evaluated: (1) triptans vs other medication types; (2) presence of allodynia vs no allodynia; and (3) the interaction of medication category with allodynia. Sociodemographic variables, health insurance status, over-the-counter and preventive medication use were included as covariates. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were generated for each acute treatment outcome. Results Among eligible participants, the mean age was 46 years, and 82.5% were women. The triptan use group had better outcomes than other medication groups for 2hPF (OR range: 2.00-2.63, all significant except ergot alkaloids) and 24hPR (OR range: 2.10-6.22, all significant). No significant medication effects were found for the 24hSPR outcome. The presence of allodynia was associated with significantly worse outcomes for both 2hPF (OR range: 1.42-1.55, all significant) and 24hPR (OR range: 1.30-1.32, all significant, except for ergot alkaloids, P = .051). Allodynia effects were not significant for the 24hSPR. The interaction between medication and allodynia was also not significant (OR range for 2hPF: .68-2.02; OR range for 2hPR: .35-1.34; OR range for 24hSPR: 1.21-2.72) in any of the models, suggesting allodynia is an important predictor of treatment response regardless of the medication group prescribed. Conclusions The use of triptan medication was associated with significantly better 2hPF (except vs ergot alkaloids) and significantly better 24hPR outcomes compared with other acute medication categories. The presence of allodynia significantly increased the likelihood of an inadequate treatment response for both of these outcomes. Triptan use was generally associated with the best outcomes. Because allodynia was associated with inadequate outcomes for all medication groups, we suggest that allodynia is an area of unmet treatment need. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To describe the development of the Impact of Migraine on Partners and Adolescent Children (IMPAC) scale. Background Although existing data and clinical experience suggest that the impact of migraine is pervasive and extends beyond the individual with migraine, no validated tools exist for assessing the impact of migraine on the family. Methods The Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) Study is a longitudinal study of people with migraine in the United States. The Family Burden Module (FBM) of the CaMEO Study contained an item pool of 53 questions derived through literature review, clinician input, and patient focus groups pertaining to the following concepts: impact of migraine on family interpersonal relationships, activities, well-being, finances, and health-related quality of life. Respondents with migraine (ie, probands) were categorized into 4 groups based on household composition: migraine probands with partners/spouses and children (M-PC), migraine probands with partners/spouses only (M-P), migraine probands with child(ren) only (M-C), and migraine probands without a partner/spouse or child(ren) (M-O). The IMPAC scale was developed in 3 steps: (1) exploratory factor analysis and item reduction, (2) bifactor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, and scoring, and (3) reliability and construct validity analyses. Results The analysis of data from 13,064 respondents to the FBM meeting criteria for migraine yielded a 12-item IMPAC scale, with 4 items applying to all of the groups, 4 more items applying to the groups with partners (M-P and M-PC), and 4 additional items to the groups with children (M-C and M-PC). Item responses can be summed and converted into a scoring system assessing mild (<0.5 SD below mean; IMPAC scale Grade I), moderate (0.5 SD below to <0.5 SD above mean; Grade II), severe (0.5-<1.5 SD above mean; Grade III), and very severe (≥0.5 SD above mean; Grade IV) family impact. Test information curves relating to the IMPAC scale for each household type indicated adequate reliability across a large range of family burden severity (from ∼1 SD below to ∼3 SD above mean) and IMPAC scores showed moderate-to-large correlations with other validated tools (range, ± 0.38-0.52), providing support for construct validity. Conclusions We developed a questionnaire to assess family burden attributed to migraine that is brief, robust, and psychometrically sound, with a simple scoring algorithm that can be applied to various household compositions. This questionnaire may be valuable in research settings to provide quantifiable data on the impact of migraine on family dynamics and in clinical settings to facilitate conversations about family burden as a target and a motivation for better treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Though migraine, particularly migraine with aura, is a cardiovascular (CV) risk factor, the scope and distribution of cardiovascular disease in representative samples of people with migraine are not known. This is important because many widely used acute migraine treatments, including triptans, ergot alkaloids, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, carry precautions, warnings, or contraindications for use in persons with CV disease. Objectives To assess the scope and distribution of cardiovascular events, conditions, and procedures in persons with episodic migraine in a representative sample of the US population, using data from the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention (AMPP) Study. Methods Eligible subjects completed the 2009 AMPP survey, met ICHD-3beta criteria for migraine, and had a headache frequency of less than 15 days per month (episodic migraine). A survey on cardiovascular events (ie, myocardial infarction), conditions (ie, angina), and procedures (ie, carotid endarterectomy) was adopted from the Women's Health Study and the Physician's Health Studies. Cardiovascular events and conditions were defined by participant reports of having both experienced and received a physician diagnosis for a particular event or condition. The distribution of CV events, conditions, and procedures was summarized for the entire migraine sample and in groups defined by gender and age (22-39, 40-59, and ≥60). To assess the numbers of persons with episodic migraine in the US, we applied age and gender stratified estimates of migraine prevalence to the 2015 Census data. To estimate the number of cardiovascular events, conditions, and procedures in the US migraine population, we applied age and gender stratified event rates to the number of persons with episodic migraine in each stratum. Results The 2009 AMPP Study survey was returned by 11,792 study participants out of 16,983 (64.9% response rate), including 6723 individuals who met study criteria for episodic migraine (5227 women and 1496 men). Among 22-39 year olds with episodic migraine, 3.4% reported having received a physician diagnosis of CV events or conditions and 1.1% reported undergoing CV related procedures. Among 40-59 year olds, 10.2% reported having received a physician diagnosis of CV events or conditions and 3.5% reported CV related procedures. For those age 60 or older, 22.3% reported CV events or conditions and 8.8% reported CV procedures. Prevalence of events, conditions, and procedures was higher in men than women and also in older age groups. However, the absolute number of CV events, procedures, and conditions was greater for women than men due to the higher population prevalence of episodic migraine in women. We projected that 2.0 million women and 665,000 men in the US had episodic migraine and a history of one or more CV event, condition, or procedure. By age group, it is estimated that 579,000 among those aged 22-39, 1.37 million of those aged 40-59, and 696,000 of those 60 and older with episodic migraine have ever had at least one CV event, procedure, or condition. Conclusion Based on these analyses, we estimate that there are roughly 2.6 million people with episodic migraine aged 22 and older in the US with one or more prior CV event, condition, or procedure. For this group, cardiovascular contraindications to many migraine-specific acute migraine therapies may make treatment challenging. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To compare the methods and baseline characteristics of the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention (AMPP) and Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) studies. Background The AMPP and CaMEO studies are the largest longitudinal efforts designed to improve our understanding of episodic and chronic migraine in the United States. The studies have complementary strengths and weaknesses. Methods This analysis compares and contrasts the study methods and participation rates of the AMPP and CaMEO studies. We then compare and contrast baseline results in terms of demographic characteristics, headache features, and disability as measured by the Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS) among people with episodic and chronic migraine. Results AMPP and CaMEO sampled from panels constructed to be representative of the US population. The AMPP Study collected data using a mailed questionnaire while CaMEO relied on a web survey methodology. Response rates were higher in AMPP (64.8%) than in CaMEO (16.5%). Both studies assessed headache features using the American Migraine Study/AMPP diagnostic module. Both identified persons with episodic (<15 headache days/month) and chronic migraine (≥15 headache days/month) based on the International Classification of Headache Disorders. AMPP collected data annually over 5 years, while CaMEO collected data quarterly over 15 months. Baseline demographic distribution was generally similar, indicating that each study was broadly representative of the US population. The proportion of persons with migraine who had chronic migraine was similar (AMPP, 6.6%; CaMEO, 8.8%). Respondents had similar median headache frequency (days/month) by sex for chronic migraine (AMPP: men = 21.7, women = 20.0; CaMEO: men = 20.0, women = 20.0) and episodic migraine (AMPP: men = 1.7, women = 2.0; CaMEO: men = 2.0, women = 3.0). Median MIDAS scores were substantially higher in both studies for chronic migraine (severe disability [Grade IV]; AMPP: men = 33.0, women = 45.0; CaMEO: men = 32.0, women = 38.0) than episodic migraine (little/mild disability [Grade I/II]; AMPP: men = 3.0, women = 6.0; CaMEO: men = 4.0, women = 7.0). Rates of moderate/severe disability (Grade III/IV) were substantially higher in both studies for chronic migraine (AMPP: men = 66.9%, women = 78.9%; CaMEO: men = 71.0%, women = 82.6%) than episodic migraine (AMPP: men = 23.0%, women = 31.8%; CaMEO: men = 26.7%, women = 37.9%). More women than men respondents in both studies experienced moderate/severe disability. Conclusions AMPP and CaMEO are longitudinal cohort studies that used different methods, but yielded similar results for demographic features, headache frequency, and headache-related disability. Both studies found more severe headache-related disability in those with chronic versus episodic migraine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To assess the rates and predictors of traversing steps essential to good medical care for chronic migraine, including: (1) medical consultation, (2) accurate diagnosis, and (3) minimal pharmacologic treatment. Candidate predictors included socioeconomic, demographic, and headache-specific variables. Background Previous research has established that barriers to effective management for episodic migraine include the absence of health insurance, lack of appropriate medical consultation, failure to receive an accurate diagnosis, and not being offered a regimen with acute and preventive treatments. Methods/Design The Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) Study, a longitudinal web-based panel study of migraine, included a cross-sectional module focused on patterns of and barriers to medical care. Participants eligible for this analysis met the study criteria for chronic migraine, had evidence of headache-related disability, and provided data on health insurance status. The main outcomes in the current analysis included the proportion of respondents who sought consultation for headache with a designated healthcare professional, self-reported receiving a diagnosis of chronic or transformed migraine, and received minimal pharmacologic treatment for headache with a focus on prescribed acute and preventive treatments. Results In the CaMEO Study, 80,783 respondents provided study data, 16,789 (20.8% of respondents) met criteria for migraine, and 1476 (8.8% of those with migraine) met chronic migraine criteria. In total, 1254 participants (85.0% of those with chronic migraine) met inclusion criteria for this analysis. Of those, 512 respondents (40.8%) reported currently consulting with a healthcare professional for headache. Odds of consulting increased with increasing age (OR 1.02; 95% CI 1.01-1.03), body mass index (BMI) (OR 1.01; 95% CI 1.00-1.03), migraine-related disability (OR 1.02; 95% CI 1.00-1.04), and migraine severity (OR 1.16; 95% CI 1.11-1.22) and presence of health insurance (OR 4.61; 95% CI 3.05-6.96). Among those consulting a healthcare professional, 126 (24.6%) received an accurate diagnosis and 56 of those with a correct diagnosis (44.4%) received both acute and preventive pharmacologic treatments; odds of a CM diagnosis were higher for women (OR 1.93; 95% CI 1.03-3.61), those with greater migraine severity (OR 1.25; 95% CI 1.14-1.37), and those currently consulting a specialist (OR 2.38; 95% CI 1.54-3.69). No predictors of receiving appropriate treatment were identified among those currently consulting. Among our sample of people with chronic migraine, only 56 (4.5%) individuals successfully traversed the series of 3 barriers to successful chronic migraine care (ie, consulted a healthcare professional for migraine, received an accurate diagnosis, and were prescribed minimal acute and preventive pharmacologic treatments). Conclusion Our findings suggest that <5% of persons with chronic migraine traversed 3 barriers to receiving care for headache (consultation, diagnosis, and treatment), representing a large unmet need for improving care in this population. Predictors of consulting a healthcare professional included age, having health insurance, greater migraine-related disability, and greater migraine symptom severity. Among those consulting, predictors of an appropriate diagnosis included consulting a specialist, female sex, and greater migraine severity. Public health efforts are needed to improve outcomes for patients with chronic migraine by a range of interventions and educational efforts aimed at improving consultation rates, diagnostic accuracy, and adherence to minimal pharmacologic treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective The objective of this study was to compare the societal direct and indirect costs of chronic and episodic migraine in the United States. Background Episodic and chronic migraine are distinguished by the frequency of headache-days. Chronic migraine has a greater overall impact on quality of life than does episodic migraine. Individuals with chronic migraine also use more healthcare resources (resulting in higher direct costs) and experience greater decreases in productivity (resulting in higher indirect costs) than those with episodic migraine as shown in the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention (AMPP) Study. Methods The International Burden of Migraine Study utilized a web-based questionnaire to elicit data on several topics related to the burden of migraine illness, including health resource utilization and productivity losses. Potential survey participants were identified by Synovate Healthcare (Chicago, IL, USA) from a pool of registered panelists from various countries. The panelists were screened online to determine eligibility and to identify individuals with migraine (episodic or chronic), based on reported symptoms. Participants from the United States were divided into episodic and chronic migraine groups, based on reported headache-day per month frequency. Direct and indirect costs were estimated by applying estimated unit costs to reported headache-related productivity losses and resource use. Costs were compared between participants with episodic and chronic migraine. Results Mean [standard deviation] total annual cost of headache among people with chronic migraine ($8243 [$10,646]) was over three times that of episodic migraine ($2649 [$4634], P < .001). Participants with chronic migraine had significantly greater direct medical costs ($4943 [$6382]) and indirect (lost productivity) costs ($3300 [$6907]) than did participants with episodic migraine (direct, $1705 [$3591]; indirect, $943 [$2084]) ( P < .001 for each). Unlike previous findings, direct medical costs constituted the majority of total headache-related costs for both chronic migraine (60.0%, $4943 of $8243) and episodic migraine (64.3%, $1705 of $2649) participants. A large portion of direct medical costs are attributable to pharmaceutical utilization among both chronic migraine (80%, $3925 of 4943) and episodic migraine (70%, $1196 of $1705) participants. Conclusion The results of this study build on previous results of the AMPP Study, demonstrating that headache-related direct, indirect, and total costs are significantly greater among individuals with chronic migraine than with episodic migraine in the United States. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives To test the hypothesis that in persons with episodic migraine (EM), asthma is a risk factor for the onset of chronic migraine (CM). Background Migraine and asthma are comorbid chronic disorders with episodic attacks thought to involve inflammatory and neurological mechanisms. Herein, we assess the influence of asthma on the clinical course of EM. Methods To be eligible for this observational cohort study, AMPP Study participants had to meet criteria for EM in 2008, complete the validated six-item asthma questionnaire from the European Community Respiratory Health Survey (ECRHS) in 2008, and provide follow-up data in 2009. Using the ECRHS, we defined asthma as a binary variable (present or absent) based on an empirical cut score and developed a Respiratory Symptom Severity Score (RSSS) based on the number of positive responses (no severity = 0 positive responses, low severity = 1-2 positive responses, moderate severity = 3-4 positive responses, high severity = 5-6 positive responses). Chronic migraine was the primary outcome measure and was defined as those with ≥15 headache days per month on the 2009 AMPP Study survey. We used logistic regression in separate models to assess the influence of asthma as a binary variable (Model 1) and RSSS score categories (Model 2 using no respiratory symptoms as the reference) on CM onset after adjusting for sociodemographic factors, headache day frequency, migraine preventive medication use, and medication overuse. Results The eligible sample for this study included 4446 individuals with EM in 2008 of whom 17% had asthma. This group had a mean age of 50.4 and was 80.8% female. In 2009, new onset CM developed in 2.9% (131/4446) of the 2008 EM cohort, including 5.4% (40/746) of the asthma subgroup and 2.5% (91/3700) of the non-asthma subgroup. In comparison to those without asthma, the adjusted odds for individuals with asthma and EM in 2008 to develop CM in 2009 were greater than two (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.1; 95% CI: 1.4-3.1). Using the RSSS, the aOR for CM onset increased with the number of asthma symptoms, but only those in the high RSSS category showed a statistically significant increase in the odds of chronic migraine onset in comparison with the no RSSS reference group (aOR 3.3; 95% CI 1.7-6.2). Conclusions Asthma is associated with an increased risk of new onset CM 1 year later among individuals with EM, with the highest risk being among those with the greatest number of respiratory symptoms. The exact mechanisms underlying this association are unknown, but could suggest mast cell degranulation, autonomic dysfunction, or shared genetic or environmental factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives To test the hypothesis that sumatriptan iontophoretic transdermal system ( TDS) is associated with lower rates of treatment-emergent nausea ( TEN) relative to placebo, as well as to compare the efficacy of sumatriptan TDS in migraineurs with or without nausea at baseline. Methods Participants of a double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, single-attack, placebo-controlled study conducted at 38 sites in the United States were analyzed. Participants who treated their migraine attacks while nausea-free were identified. The primary endpoint was TEN over 24 hours post-treatment contrasting both treatment groups and it was assessed by regression analyses using generalized estimating equations. Secondary endpoint was headache response as a function of presence of nausea, assessed by generalized linear model. Results A total of 130 participants free of nausea at baseline were treated with sumatriptan TDS, while 109 participants free of nausea at baseline were treated with placebo TDS. The occurrence of TEN over 24 hours post-treatment was significantly lower with the sumatriptan TDS than with placebo ( P = .0011). These differences were statistically significant at 1 hour (13.8% vs 9.2%, P < .01), 2 hours (13.8% vs 4.6% P < .001) and 3 hours (13.8% vs 8.5% P < .01). The efficacy of sumatriptan TDS was similar regardless of the presence or absence of nausea at baseline for all clinical parameters. Conclusion Sumatriptan TDS is not associated with the emergence of nausea in migraineurs without nausea. It is equally effective in participants with or without nausea at the time of treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives To assess the influence of triptan or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug ( NSAID) use on the likelihood of developing chronic migraine ( CM) among persons with episodic migraine ( EM). Background CM is common in tertiary headache care, and relative to EM, CM is associated with a number of deleterious outcomes, including higher headache-related disability, reduced health-related quality of life, and increased direct and indirect costs. Symptomatic medication use has emerged as an important risk factor for the development of CM. Limited evidence based on a single year of follow up suggests that the association between NSAID and triptan use with the onset of CM varies in a dose-dependent manner that interacts with headache frequency. However, this interaction has never been explicitly studied. Herein, we evaluate results from a large-scale, 5-year, population-based observational study to characterize these relationships and test the hypothesis that NSAID use may modify the effect of triptan use on CM onset. Methods In the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention ( AMPP) study, 11,249 participants had EM in 2005 and provided up to 5 years of annual follow-up data. We analyzed the characteristics of persons with EM 1 year that predicted new onset CM in the subsequent year, focusing on treatment with NSAIDs and triptans as exposures. These adjacent years of data provide the basis for analysis and are termed 'couplets.' Repeated measures logistic regression with a subject-specific random intercept was used to model the likelihood of transition from EM to CM as a function of NSAID or triptan dose while controlling for a number of covariates including headache features, use of other medications, and the number of couplets per individual. Results The analysis included 9031 individuals with EM contributing up to 5 years of data and up to 4 couplets each. Results indicated that on average, 55% of the participants used NSAIDs in any given year and 2% transitioned to CM over subsequent years. Among the 20% using triptans, 3% per year transitioned to CM. Among persons with less than 10 headache days per month, frequency of NSAID use was associated with dose-dependent reductions in risk of CM onset. Among those with 10-14 headache days per month, increasing days per month of NSAID use was associated with increasing risk of CM onset. Increasing days per month of triptan use was associated with increased risk of transitioning to CM. Combination use of NSAIDs and triptans was not protective against transition to CM, but was also not statistically significantly associated with increased risk of CM onset. Conclusion Triptan use in EM is associated with an increased risk of CM onset that increases with days of medication use. For NSAIDs, effects depend on headache days per month. NSAIDs are protective in individuals with less than 10 headache days per month but associated with increased risk with 10 or more headache days per month. Combining a triptan and NSAID was not associated with a statistically significant increased risk of CM onset, whereas increased risk of CM onset was significantly associated with triptan monotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives.- To estimate the prevalence and distribution of chronic migraine (CM) in the US population and compare the age- and sex-specific profiles of headache-related disability in persons with CM and episodic migraine. Background.- Global estimates of CM prevalence using various definitions typically range from 1.4% to 2.2%, but the influence of sociodemographic factors has not been completely characterized. Methods.- The American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention Study mailed surveys to a sample of 120,000 US households selected to represent the US population. Data on headache frequency, symptoms, sociodemographics, and headache-related disability (using the Migraine Disability Assessment Scale) were obtained. Modified Silberstein-Lipton criteria were used to classify CM (meeting International Classification of Headache Disorders, second edition, criteria for migraine with a headache frequency of ≥15 days over the preceding 3 months). Results.- Surveys were returned by 162,756 individuals aged ≥12 years; 19,189 individuals (11.79%) met International Classification of Headache Disorders, second edition, criteria for migraine (17.27% of females; 5.72% of males), and 0.91% met criteria for CM (1.29% of females; 0.48% of males). Relative to 12 to 17 year olds, the age- and sex-specific prevalence for CM peaked in the 40s at 1.89% (prevalence ratio 4.57; 95% confidence interval 3.13-6.67) for females and 0.79% (prevalence ratio 3.35; 95% confidence interval 1.99-5.63) for males. In univariate and adjusted models, CM prevalence was inversely related to annual household income. Lower income groups had higher rates of CM. Individuals with CM had greater headache-related disability than those with episodic migraine and were more likely to be in the highest Migraine Disability Assessment Scale grade (37.96% vs 9.50%, respectively). Headache-related disability was highest among females with CM compared with males. CM represented 7.68% of migraine cases overall, and the proportion generally increased with age. Conclusions.- In the US population, the prevalence of CM was nearly 1%. In adjusted models, CM prevalence was highest among females, in mid-life, and in households with the lowest annual income. Severe headache-related disability was more common among persons with CM and most common among females with CM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines and compares healthcare resource utilization and related costs among patients with chronic migraine and episodic migraine in the U.S. and Canada. Headache-specific medication, healthcare provider visits, emergency department visits, and diagnostic testing were the common medical services utilized. Chronic migraine was determined to be linked to higher medical resource use and total costs compared with episodic migraine.

To estimate the prevalence of neuropsychiatric and pain disorders in adults with epilepsy in the United States. In 2008, an 11-item survey including validated questions to screen for a lifetime history of epilepsy was mailed to 340,000 households from two national panels selected to be generally representative of the noninstitutionalized U.S. population. Information on epilepsy and other disorders was collected from 172,959 respondents aged 18 or older. Propensity scoring was used to match respondents with and without epilepsy on baseline characteristics and risk factors for epilepsy. Prevalence ratios (PRs) of comorbidities in respondents with epilepsy were calculated using log-binomial generalized linear models. Comorbidities were categorized as neuropsychiatric (anxiety, depression, bipolar disorder, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, sleep disorder/apnea, and movement disorder/tremor), pain (migraine headache, chronic pain, fibromyalgia, neuropathic pain), and other (asthma, diabetes, and high blood pressure). Two percent (3,488) of respondents reported ever having been told they had epilepsy or a seizure disorder. Respondents with self-reported epilepsy were more likely (p < 0.001) than those without epilepsy to report all six neuropsychiatric disorders (PR from 1.27-2.39), all four pain disorders (PR 1.36-1.96), and asthma (PR 1.25). Neuropsychiatric conditions and pain disorder comorbidities were reported more often in individuals with self-reported epilepsy than in those without epilepsy. Identification of these conditions is an important consideration in the clinical management of epilepsy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

( Headache 2010;50:937-942) Background.— Many clinicians use peripheral nerve blocks (NBs) and trigger point injections (TPIs) for the treatment of headaches. Little is known, however, about the patterns of use of these procedures among practitioners in the USA. Objectives.— The aim of this study was to obtain information on patterns of office-based use of peripheral NBs and TPIs by headache practitioners in the USA. Methods.— Using an Internet-based questionnaire, the Interventional Procedures Special Interest Section of the American Headache Society (AHS) conducted a survey among practitioners who were members of AHS on patterns of use of NBs and TPIs for headache treatment. Results.— Electronic invitations were sent to 1230 AHS members and 161 provided useable data (13.1%). Of the responders, 69% performed NBs and 75% performed TPIs. The most common indications for the use of NBs were occipital neuralgia and chronic migraine (CM), and the most common indications for the use of TPIs were chronic tension-type headache and CM. The most common symptom prompting the clinician to perform these procedures was local tenderness at the intended injection site. The most common local anesthetics used for these procedures were lidocaine and bupivacaine. Dosing regimens, volumes of injection, and injection schedules varied greatly. There was also a wide variation in the use of corticosteroids when performing the injections. Both NBs and TPIs were generally well tolerated. Conclusions.— Nerve blocks and TPIs are commonly used by headache practitioners in the USA for the treatment of various headache disorders, although the patterns of their use vary greatly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective.— To evaluate the impact of incident transformed migraine on health care resource utilization, medication use, and productivity loss. In addition, the study estimates the total direct and indirect costs associated with transformed migraine. Background.— Emerging evidence indicates that migraine may be a chronic progressive disorder characterized by escalating frequency of headache attacks, often termed transformed migraine. Little is known about the economic impact of transformed migraine. Methods.— AMPP is a 5-year, national, longitudinal survey study of headache in the US. The study utilized data from the 2006 follow-up survey based on an initial sample of 14,544 adults identified as having migraine in either the 2004 screening or 2005 baseline survey. A diagnosis of migraine was assigned based on criteria proposed by the International Classification of Headache Disorders, 2nd Edition. Participants completed self-administered, validated questionnaires on headache features, frequency, impairment, resource use, medication use, and productivity loss. Direct and indirect headache-related costs were estimated using unit cost assumptions from the PharMetrics Patient-Centric database, wholesale acquisition costs (Red Book), and wage data from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. Those who developed transformed migraine were compared with those who did not develop transformed migraine in the 1-2 year interval between screening/baseline and follow-up. Results.— A total of 7796 (54%) identified migraine cases completed the 2006 follow-up survey. Of those cases, 359 (4.6%) developed transformed migraine. Participants who developed transformed migraine reported significantly more primary care visits, neurologist or headache specialist visits, pain clinic visits, and emergency room visits compared with participants whose migraine remained episodic. Hospital nights and urgent care visits did not reach statistical significance. Transformed migraine participants reported significantly more time missed at work or school because of headaches and more time where work or school productivity was reduced by >50% in the previous 3 months because of headaches. Average per-person annual total costs, including direct and indirect costs, were 4.4-fold greater for those who developed transformed migraine ($7750) compared with those who remained episodic ($1757). Conclusion.— Transformed migraine exacts a significantly higher economic toll on patients and health care systems compared with other forms of migraine. Our findings support the need to prevent migraine progression and to provide appropriate management and treatment of transformed migraine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Research indicates that successful migraine assessment and treatment depends on information obtained during patient and healthcare professional (HCP) discussions. However, no studies outline how migraine is actually discussed during clinical encounters.Objective: Record naturally occurring HCP-migraineur interactions, analyzing frequency and impairment assessment, and preventive treatment discussions.Design: HCPs seeing high volumes of migraineurs were recruited for a communication study. Patients likely to discuss migraine were recruited immediately before their normally scheduled appointment and, once consented, were audio- and video-recorded without a researcher present. Separate post-visit interviews were conducted with patients and HCPs. All interactions were transcribed.Participants: Sixty patients (83% female; mean age 41.7) were analyzed. Patients were diagnosed with migraine 14 years and experienced 5 per month, on average.Approach: Transcripts were analyzed using sociolinguistic techniques such as number and type of questions asked and post-visit alignment on migraine frequency and impairment. American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention Study guidelines were utilized.Results: Ninety-one percent of HCP-initiated, migraine-specific questions were closed-ended/short answer; assessments focused on frequency and did not focus on attention on impairment. Open-ended questions in patient post-visit interviews yielded robust impairment-related information. Post-visit, 55% of HCP-patient pairs were misaligned regarding frequency; 51% on impairment. Of the 20 (33%) patients who were preventive medication candidates, 80% did not receive it and 50% of their visits lacked discussion of prevention.Conclusions: Sociolinguistic analysis revealed that HCPs often used narrowly focused, closed-ended questions and were often unaware of how migraine affected patients' lives as a result. It is recommended that HCPs assess impairment using open-ended questions in combination with the ask-tell-ask technique. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective.—To describe the patterns of medical treatment for migraineurs in the United States. Background.—Over the past decade, many new treatments for migraine have become available and awareness of migraine has improved. However, there is little information about the patterns of medical treatment in the US society. Design/Methods.—A validated self-administered headache questionnaire was mailed to a random sample of 120,000 US households. Each household member with severe headaches was asked to complete the survey. The questionnaire assessed headache features, disability, and patterns of medical treatment. Subjects were classified according to their use of headache preventive medication, as current users, coincident users (using effective medications for other medical reasons), lapsed users (had used in the past but not at the time of the survey), or never users. Results.—In 162,576 participants, the prevalence of migraine was 17.1% in women and 5.6% in men. Only 56.2% of those with migraine had ever received a medical diagnosis. Ninety-eight percent of the migraineurs used acute treatment for their migraine attacks. Forty-nine percent (49%) usually used over-the-counters, 20% usually used prescription medications, and 29% used both. Only 12.4% of migraineurs indicated that they were taking a migraine preventive medication, but 17.2% were using medications with potential antimigraine effects for other medical reasons. Current or past use of preventive medication was more likely in women than men (odds ratio [OR]= 1.37, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.27-1.48), increased with age and individuals with high MIDAS grade (Grade IV vs I, OR 2.35, 95% CI 2.09-2.64). Preventive medication use increased with awareness of migraine and with illness severity. Conclusions.—Migraine remains undertreated in the US population. Barriers to preventive treatment are greater in younger age groups, men, and people unaware that they have migraine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background.—Although neurologists commonly self-treat for migraine and other conditions, little is known about the patterns of self-treatment by physicians in the United States. Objectives.—The aim was to obtain information about neurologist's self-treatment and treatment of family members and their attitudes about self-treatment by other physicians. Methods.—A survey was performed among neurologists attending the Texas Neurological Society's Winter Conference using a questionnaire about self-treatment and treatment of family members during the prior 12 months and attitudes about self-treatment by other physicians. Results.—Among 186 physicians invited to participate, the response rate was 48%. Although 76% reported having primary care physicians, neurologists reported the following behaviors: 38% self-diagnosed or self-treated medical conditions including migraine in 25%; 56% started themselves on prescription medications including 21% who used triptans and 15% who used migraine preventive medications; 33% ordered blood tests on themselves; and 20% ordered imaging studies on themselves. Sixty percent reported missing no work due to illness, 87% missed 2 days or less, and 99% reported missing 1 week or less. Eighty percent reported treating their family members for acute minor illnesses and 33% for chronic conditions. The following percentage of participants reported that they would be likely to self-diagnose and self-treat the following hypothetical illnesses: 70%, migraines which were not severe; 19%, new onset frequent headaches; and 48%, chronic daily headaches. The following percentage of participants agreed or strongly agreed that the following behaviors were acceptable for physicians: 94%, self-treat acute minor illnesses; 37%, self-treat chronic conditions; 42%, order blood test for diagnostic purposes; 40%, order imaging studies for diagnostic purposes; 87%, treat family members for acute minor conditions; and 36%, treat family members for chronic conditions. Conclusions.—Neurologists commonly treat themselves and family members. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Seven oral triptans, which differ on a range of attributes important for treatment selection, are now available for treating migraine. US neurologists were surveyed to assess the relative importance of treatment attributes, prespecified by clinical relevance and availability of controlled study data, for selecting among oral triptans. Using a multiattribute decision model, we combined these data on the importance of treatment attributes with information on the relative performance of the oral triptans derived from a recent meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Migraine remains substantially underdiagnosed and undertreated in the United States. Tools to screen for migraine and to measure headache-related disability can help address barriers to effective diagnosis and treatment. In this article, public health criteria for screening programs for any medical condition are first reviewed. Modifications of these criteria for migraine and other chronic/episodic disorders are then proposed. Migraine is assessed to determine how well it meets criteria for screening and the steps that are necessary before firm public policy recommendations for screening for migraine are possible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To develop and assess telephone-based screening tests for dementia, especially Alzheimer's disease (AD). Design: A cross-sectional validation study nested within a longitudinal study of aging and dementia. Setting: The Einstein Aging Study of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York. Participants: Three hundred elderly community volunteers living in Bronx County, 27 of whom were diagnosed with dementia based on in-person clinical evaluation. Of the 27 individuals with dementia, 18 had AD. Measurements: A telephone battery was administered that included the Memory Impairment Screen by telephone (MIS-T, a test of semantic memory), the Category Fluency Test (CF-T), and the Telephone Instrument for Cognitive Status (TICS). An in-person evaluation then followed that included a neurological examination, a neuropsychological battery, demographics, and medical history. Results: The telephone battery was well accepted. The MIS-T required 4 minutes; the CF-T, 3 minutes; and the TICS, 10 minutes. The MIS-T had excellent sensitivity and specificity when compared with the CF-T and the TICS. Using cutscores on all three tests that provide a sensitivity of 78%, specificity was significantly higher for the MIS-T (93%) than for the CF-T (78%, P <.05) or the TICS (80%, P <.05). Combining the MIS-T and CF-T improved discriminative validity but increased screening time and the complexity of scoring. Normative data for the MIS-T, the CF-T, and the TICS for use in settings with different base rates (prevalence) of dementia are presented in this study. Conclusion: The MIS-T outperforms the CF-T and the TICS as a valid and time-efficient telephone screen for dementia. For applications that require optimal efficiency and accuracy, the MIS-T is recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective.—To describe the prevalence, sociodemographic profile, and the burden of migraine in the United States in 1999 and to compare results with the original American Migraine Study, a 1989 population-based study employing identical methods. Methods.—A validated, self-administered questionnaire was mailed to a sample of 20 000 households in the United States. Each household member with severe headache was asked to respond to questions about symptoms, frequency, and severity of headaches and about headache-related disability. Diagnostic criteria for migraine were based on those of the International Headache Society. This report is restricted to individuals 12 years and older. Results.—Of the 43 527 age-eligible individuals, 29 727 responded to the questionnaire for a 68.3% response rate. The prevalence of migraine was 18.2% among females and 6.5% among males. Approximately 23% of households contained at least one member suffering from migraine. Migraine prevalence was higher in whites than in blacks and was inversely related to household income. Prevalence increased from aged 12 years to about aged 40 years and declined thereafter in both sexes. Fifty-three percent of respondents reported that their severe headaches caused substantial impairment in activities or required bed rest. Approximately 31% missed at least 1 day of work or school in the previous 3 months because of migraine; 51% reported that work or school productivity was reduced by at least 50%. Conclusions.—Two methodologically identical national surveys in the United States conducted 10 years apart show that the prevalence and distribution of migraine have remained stable over the last decade. Migraine-associated disability remains substantial and pervasive. The number of migraineurs has increased from 23.6 million in 1989 to 27.9 million in 1999 commensurate with the growth of the population. Migraine is an important target for public health interventions because it... [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective.—A population-based survey was conducted in 1999 to describe the patterns of migraine diagnosis and medication use in a representative sample of the US population and to compare results with a methodologically identical study conducted 10 years earlier. Methods.—A survey mailed to a panel of 20 000 US households identified 3577 individuals with severe headache meeting a case definition for migraine based on the International Headache Society (IHS) criteria. Those with severe headache answered questions regarding physician diagnosis and use of medications for headache as well as headache-related disability. Results.—A physician diagnosis of migraine was reported by 48% of survey participants who met IHS criteria for migraine in 1999, compared with 38% in 1989. A total of 41% of IHS-defined migraineurs used prescription drugs for headaches in 1999, compared with 37% in 1989. The proportion of IHS-defined migraineurs using only over-the-counter medications to treat their headaches was 57% in 1999, compared with 59% in 1989. In 1999, 37% of diagnosed and 21% of undiagnosed migraineurs reported 1 to 2 days of activity restriction per episode (P<.001); 38% of diagnosed and 24% of undiagnosed migraineurs missed at least 1 day of work or school in the previous 3 months (P<.001); 57% of diagnosed and 45% of undiagnosed migraineurs experienced at least a 50% reduction in work/school productivity (P<.001). Conclusions.— Diagnosis of migraine has increased over the past decade. Nonetheless, approximately half of migraineurs remain undiagnosed, and the increased rates of diagnosis of migraine have been accompanied by only a modest increase in the proportion using prescription medicines. Migraine continues to cause significant disability whether or not there has been a physician diagnosis. Given the availability of effective treatments, public health initiatives to improve patterns of care are warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cutaneous allodynia is a common clinical feature of migraine that has been associated with reduced efficacy of acute migraine treatments and an increased risk of disease progression.Objective: Identify factors associated with allodynia in a sample of adults with migraine.Methods: An online survey panel was used to identify adults with migraine who averaged at least 1 monthly headache day over the previous 3 months. Data on sociodemographics, headache frequency, headache pain intensity, migraine symptom severity, medication use, depression and anxiety, and cutaneous allodynia (via the Allodynia Symptom Checklist) were obtained. Binary logistic modeling predicted the presence of allodynia. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated.Results: In total, 15,133 individuals with migraine met the eligibility criteria. Mean age was 43.1 years, 73.0% were female, and 81.0% were Caucasian. Allodynia was present in 39.9%. The fully adjusted model, controlling for sociodemographics and headache features, demonstrated that allodynia was significantly associated with a higher migraine symptom severity score (odds ratio 1.17, confidence interval 1.15, 1.19) and more severe pain intensity (odds ratio 1.11, confidence interval 1.08, 1.14); probable depression and/or anxiety (odds ratio 1.83, confidence interval 1.67, 2.00); and overuse of acute medication (odds ratio 1.23, confidence interval 1.09, 1.38). A higher number of monthly headache days increased the likelihood of allodynia, but the effect was attenuated in the fully adjusted model.Conclusion: In a representative sample of US adults with migraine, there were significant associations between allodynia and headache frequency and intensity, anxiety and/or depression, symptom severity, and acute medication overuse. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a case study on the calculation of employer costs for lost productive time (LPT) in episodic and chronic migraine in the U.S. It notes that the distribution of employed migraine sufferers by number of days with headache has allowed for the estimation of LPT costs from migraine. It mentions that persistent losses to productive time can result from symptomatic conditions.

The article presents a study on the impact of episodic migraine (EM) and chronic migraine (CM) on employees. The study used data from the 2005 American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention study, a longitudinal survey involving 11,000 migraneurs. It shows that 19% of migraineurs with CM are less likely to be working for pay and lost 4.6 hours per week due to headache. It concludes that if employment status is not measured, the work impact of CM and high frequency EM will be underestimated.

Objectives: Migraine is often perceived as a low-impact condition that imposes a limited burden to society and the health-care system. This study reviews the current understanding of the burden of migraine in the U.S., the history of economic understanding of migraine treatment and identifies emergent trends for future studies evaluating clinical and economic outcomes of migraine treatment. Methods: This study traced the history of economic articles published on migraine by performing a literature search using PubMed MEDLINE database and ancestral searches of relevant articles. The intention was not to provide an exhaustive review of every article or adjudicate between studies with different findings. Results: Migraine affects millions of individuals worldwide, generally during the most productive years of a person's life. Studies show that migraineurs are underdiagnosed, undertreated, and experience substantial decreases in functioning and productivity, which in turn translates into diminished quality of life for individuals, and financial burdens to both health-care systems and employers. Economic evaluations of migraine therapies have evolved with new clinical developments beginning with cognitive-behavioral therapy, introduction of triptans, concern over medication overuse, and emergence of migraine prophylaxis. Now recent clinical studies suggest that migraine may be a progressive disease with cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, and long-term neurologic effects. Conclusions: Migraine imposes a substantial burden on patients, families, employers and societies. The economic standards by which migraine and treatment are evaluated have evolved in response to clinical developments. Emerging evidence suggests that migraine is a chronic and progressive disease. If confirmed, approaches to acute and prophylactic treatments and economic evaluations of migraine treatment may require major reconsideration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To assess the prevalence and impact of neck pain during headache among respondents with migraine in the multicountry Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes - International (CaMEO-I) Study., Background: Neck pain among individuals with migraine is highly prevalent and contributes to disability., Methods: The CaMEO-I was a prospective, cross-sectional, web-based study conducted in Canada, France, Germany, Japan, United Kingdom, and the United States. A demographically representative sample of participants from each country completed a screening survey to evaluate headache characteristics. Respondents with headache were identified as having migraine or non-migraine headache based on modified International Classification of Headache Disorders, third edition, criteria; those with migraine completed a detailed survey with migraine-specific assessments. Results were stratified by the presence or absence of neck pain with headache (NPWH). For these analyses, data were pooled across the six countries., Results: Of 51,969 respondents who reported headache within the past 12 months, 14,492 (27.9%) were classified as having migraine; the remaining 37,477 (72.1%) had non-migraine headache. Overall, 9896/14,492 (68.3%) of respondents with migraine headache reported NPWH, which was significantly higher (p < 0.001) than the proportion of respondents with non-migraine headache who reported NPWH (13,536/37,477 [36.1%]). Among respondents with migraine, moderate-to-severe disability was significantly more prevalent for those with NPWH versus without (47.7% [4718/9896] vs. 28.9%, p < 0.001). Respondents with NPWH versus without also had significantly greater work productivity losses, at a median (interquartile range [IQR]) of 50.0 (20.0, 71.3) vs. 30.0 (0.0, 60.0) (p < 0.001), lower quality of life (Migraine-Specific Quality of Life questionnaire version 2.1, median [IQR] Role Function-Restrictive domain score 60.0 [42.9, 74.3] vs. 68.6 [54.3, 82.9], p < 0.001), higher prevalence of depression and anxiety symptoms (depression, 40.2% [3982/9896] vs. 28.2% [1296/4596], p < 0.001); anxiety, 41.2% [4082/9896] vs. 29.2% [1343/4596], p < 0.001), higher prevalence of cutaneous allodynia during headache (54.0% [5345/9896] vs. 36.6% [1681/4596], p < 0.001), and higher prevalence of poor acute treatment optimization (61.1% [5582/9129] vs. 53.3% [2197/4122], p < 0.001)., Conclusions: Nearly 70% of respondents with migraine reported NPWH. Individuals with migraine with neck pain during their headaches had greater disability, depression, anxiety, and cutaneous allodynia (during headache) than those without neck pain during their headaches. They also had diminished quality of life and work productivity, and poorer response to acute treatment compared with those without neck pain., (© 2024 The Author(s). Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Headache Society.)

Objective: Hispanic/Latino individuals in the U.S. have the highest prevalence of undiagnosed and untreated diabetes and are at increased risk for cognitive impairment. In this study, we examine glycemic control in relation to cognitive aging and impairment in a large prospective cohort of middle-aged and older Hispanic/Latino individuals of diverse heritages., Research Design and Methods: Study of Latinos-Investigation of Neurocognitive Aging (SOL-INCA) is a Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos (HCHS/SOL) ancillary study. HCHS/SOL is a multisite (Bronx, NY; Chicago, IL; Miami, FL; and San Diego, CA), probability sampled prospective cohort study. SOL-INCA enrolled 6,377 diverse Hispanic/Latino individuals aged 50 years and older (2016-2018). The primary outcomes were cognitive function, 7-year cognitive decline, and mild cognitive impairment (MCI). The primary glycemia exposure variables were measured from fasting blood samples collected at HCHS/SOL visit 1 (2008-2011)., Results: Visit 1 mean age was 56.5 years ± 8.2 SD, and the average glycosylated hemoglobin A1C (HbA1c) was 6.12% (43.5 ± 14.6 mmol/mol). After covariate adjustment, higher HbA1c was associated with accelerated 7-year global (b = -0.045; 95% CI -0.070; -0.021; in z score units) and executive cognitive decline and a higher prevalence of MCI (odds ratio 1.20; 95% CI 1.11; 1.29)., Conclusions: Elevated HbA1c levels were associated with 7-year executive cognitive decline and increased MCI risk among diverse middle-aged and older Hispanic/Latino individuals. Our findings indicate that poor glycemic control in midlife may pose significant risks for cognitive decline and MCI later in life among Hispanic/Latino individuals of diverse heritages., (© 2024 by the American Diabetes Association.)

Objective: To evaluate whether hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, including gestational hypertension, preeclampsia, and eclampsia, are associated with cognitive decline later in life among U.S. Hispanic/Latina individuals., Methods: The HCHS/SOL (Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos) is a prospective population-based study of Hispanic/Latino individuals aged 18-74 years from four U.S. communities. This analysis included parous individuals aged 45 years or older who participated in the HCHS/SOL clinic study visit 1 (2008-2011) neurocognitive assessment and subsequently completed a repeat neurocognitive assessment as part of the Study of Latinos-Investigation of Neurocognitive Aging ancillary study visit 2 (2015-2018). Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy were assessed retrospectively by self-report of any gestational hypertension, preeclampsia, or eclampsia. Cognitive functioning was measured at both study visits with the Brief Spanish-English Verbal Learning Test, Digit Symbol Substitution, and Word Fluency. A regression-based approach was used to define cognitive decline at visit 2 as a function of cognition at visit 1 after adjustment for age, education, and follow-up time. Linear regression models were used to determine whether hypertensive disorders of pregnancy or their component diagnoses were associated with standardized cognitive decline after adjustment for sociodemographic characteristics, clinical and behavioral risk factors, and follow-up time., Results: Among 3,554 individuals included in analysis, the mean age was 56.2 years, and 467 of individuals (13.4%) reported at least one hypertensive disorder of pregnancy. Individuals with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy compared with those without were more likely to have higher mean systolic blood pressure, fasting glucose, and body mass index. After an average of 7 years of follow-up, in fully adjusted models, gestational hypertension was associated with a 0.17-SD relative decline in Digit Symbol Substitution scores (95% CI, -0.31 to -0.04) but not other cognitive domains (Brief Spanish-English Verbal Learning Test or Word Fluency). Neither preeclampsia nor eclampsia was associated with neurocognitive differences., Conclusion: The presence of preeclampsia or eclampsia was not associated with interval neurocognitive decline. In this cohort of U.S. Hispanic/Latina individuals, gestational hypertension alone was associated with decreased processing speed and executive functioning later in life., Competing Interests: Financial Disclosure Tali Elfassy received support from the NIH/National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (MD014158). Shathiyah Kulandavelu received support from American Heart Association (19CDA34660102). Leah Dodds received support from the NIH/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (HL165894). Krista M. Perreira's institution received payment from the NIH, Russell Sage Foundation, and the Urban Institute. She received an honorarium from the University of Tennessee. Richard B. Lipton received payment from AbbVie, Amgen, and Pfizer. Dr. Lipton is the Edwin S. Lowe Professor of Neurology at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York. He receives research support from the NIH: 2PO1 AG003949 (mPI), 1RF1 AG057531 (site PI), RF1 AG054548 (investigator), 1RO1 AG048642 (investigator), R56 AG057548 (investigator), RO1 AG060933 (investigator), RO1 AG062622 (investigator), 1UG3FD006795 (mPI), 1U24NS113847 (investigator), U01 AT011005 (investigator), 1R01 AG075758 (pending, investigator), 1R01 AG077639 (pending, investigator), and K23 NS107643 (mentor). He also receives support from the Migraine Research Foundation and the National Headache Foundation and research grants from TEVA, Satsuma, and Amgen. He serves on the Editorial Board of Neurology , is a senior advisor to Headache , and is an associate editor for Cephalalgia . He has reviewed for the National Institute on Aging and National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; holds stock and stock options in Biohaven Holdings as well as stock options in Manistee; and serves as consultant or advisory board member for or has received honoraria from the following: AbbVie (Allergan), American Academy of Neurology, American Headache Society, Amgen, Avanir, Axon, Axsome, Biohaven, Biovision, Boston Scientific, Dr. Reddy's (Promius), Electrocore, Eli Lilly, eNeura Therapeutics, Equinox, GlaxoSmithKline, Grifols, Lundbeck (Alder), Merck, Pernix, Pfizer, Satsuma, Supernus, Teva, Trigemina, Vector, and Vedanta. He receives royalties from Wolff's Headache 7th and 8th editions, Oxford Press University, 2009, Wiley and Informa. The other authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To analyze data from the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes-International (CaMEO-I) Study in order to characterize preventive medication use and identify preventive usage gaps among people with migraine across multiple countries., Background: Guidelines for the preventive treatment of migraine are available from scientific organizations in various countries. Although these guidelines differ among countries, eligibility for preventive treatment is generally based on monthly headache day (MHD) frequency and associated disability. The overwhelming majority of people with migraine who are eligible for preventive treatment do not receive it., Methods: The CaMEO-I Study was a cross-sectional, observational, web-based panel survey study performed in six countries: Canada, France, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States. People were invited to complete an online survey in their national language(s) to identify those with migraine according to modified International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition, criteria. People classified with migraine answered questions about current and ever use of both acute and preventive treatments for migraine. Available preventive medications for migraine differed by country. MHD frequency and associated disability data were collected. The American Headache Society (AHS) 2021 Consensus Statement algorithm was used to determine candidacy for preventive treatment (i.e., ≥3 monthly MHDs with severe disability, ≥4 MHDs with some disability, or ≥6 MHDs regardless of level of disability)., Results: Among 90,613 valid completers of the screening survey, 14,492 met criteria for migraine and completed the full survey, with approximately 2400 respondents from each country. Based on the AHS consensus statement preventive treatment candidacy algorithm, averaging across countries, 36.2% (5246/14,492) of respondents with migraine qualified for preventive treatment. Most respondents (84.5% [4431/5246]) who met criteria for preventive treatment according to the AHS consensus statement were not using a preventive medication at the time of the survey. Moreover, 19.3% (2799/14,492) of respondents had ever used preventive medication (ever users); 58.1% (1625/2799) of respondents who reported ever using a preventive medication for migraine were still taking it. Of the respondents who were currently using a preventive medication, 50.2% (815/1625) still met the criteria for needing preventive treatment based on the AHS consensus statement., Conclusions: Most people with migraine who qualify for preventive treatment are not currently taking it. Additionally, many people currently taking preventive pharmacologic treatment still meet the algorithm criteria for needing preventive treatment, suggesting inadequate benefit from their current regimen., (© 2024 AbbVie Inc and The Authors. Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Headache Society.)