Readability analysis and concept mapping of PROMs used for headache disorders.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the readability and the comprehensiveness of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) utilized in primary headache disorders literature. BACKGROUND: As the health-care landscape has evolved toward a patient-centric model, numerous PROMs have been developed to capture treatment outcomes in patients with headache disorders. For these PROMs to advance our understanding of headache disorders and their treatment impact, they must be easy to understand (i.e., reading grade level 6 or less) and comprehensively capture what matters to patients with headache. The aim of this study was to (a) assess the readability of PROMs utilized in headache disorders literature, and (b) assess the comprehensiveness of PROMs by mapping their content to a health-related quality of life framework. METHODS: In this scoping review, recently published systematic reviews were used to identify PROMs used in primary headache disorders literature. Readability analysis was performed at the level of individual items and full PROM using established readability metrics. The content of the PROMs was mapped against a health-related quality-of-life framework by two independent reviewers. RESULTS: In total, 22 PROMs (15 headache disorders related, 7 generic) were included. The median reading grade level varied between 7.1 (interquartile range [IQR] 6.3-7.8) and 12.7 (IQR 11.8-13.2). None of the PROMs were below the recommended reading grade level for patient-facing material (grade 6). Three PROMs, the Migraine-Treatment Assessment Questionnaire, the Eurolight, and the European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions 3 Level Version, were between reading grade levels 7 and 8; the remaining 19 PROMs were above reading grade level 8. In total, the PROMs included 425 items. Most items (n = 134, 32%) assessed physical function (e.g., work, activities of daily living). The remaining items assessed physical symptoms (n = 127, 30%; e.g., pain, nausea), treatment effects on symptoms (n = 65, 15%; e.g., accompanying symptoms relief, headache relief), treatment impact (n = 56, 13%; e.g., function, side effects), psychological well-being (n = 41, 10%; e.g., anger, frustration), social well-being (n = 29, 7%; e.g., missing out on social activities, relationships), psychological impact (n = 14, 3%; e.g., feeling [not] in control, feeling like a burden), and sexual well-being (n = 3, 1%; e.g., sexual activity, sexual interest). Some of the items pertained to treatment (n = 27, 6%), of which most were about treatment type and use (n = 12, 3%; e.g., medication, botulinum toxin), treatment access (n = 10, 2%; e.g., health-care utilization, cost of medication), and treatment experience (n = 9, 2%; e.g., treatment satisfaction, confidence in treatment). CONCLUSION: The PROMs used in studies of headache disorders may be challenging for some patients to understand, leading to inaccurate or missing data. Furthermore, no available PROM comprehensively measures the health-related quality-of-life impact of headache disorders or their treatment, resulting in a limited understanding of patient-reported outcomes. The development of an easy-to-understand, comprehensive, and validated headache disorders-specific PROM is warranted.

Advocacy Connection Team-Now educational program for headache fellows and patients/caregivers: Assessment of educational objectives.

OBJECTIVE: To assess for improvement in comfort in participating in advocacy for migraine and headache disorders and knowledge needed for successful advocacy. BACKGROUND: The Advocacy Connection Team (ACT)-Now program is an educational program offered through Miles for Migraine, a non-profit advocacy organization. It is designed to teach headache fellows and patients advocacy skills. METHODS: In a cross-sectional pre-test-post-test design, the 2021 ACT-Now cohort of 98 participants were administered a set of 11 pre-course survey questions identifying their role (healthcare provider/headache fellow or patient/caregiver), baseline knowledge of migraine-related disability and stigma, and baseline engagement and comfort with advocating. The post-course survey questions were the same as the pre-course questions, with the addition of one question assessing knowledge of migraine-related disability, additional questions addressing comfort levels advocating with insurance and policymakers, as well as creating an advocacy plan. RESULTS: For the pre-course survey, 69 participants responded and for the post-course survey, 40 participants responded. Compared to the pre-course survey, participants were able to correctly identify epidemiological data about migraine following the ACT-Now course (pre-course 46% correct, post-course 58% correct, p = 0.263). There was also an increase in the comfort level of participants in advocacy activities, including the creation of an advocacy action plan (pre-course 23% were "very comfortable" advocating, post-course 63%, p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: These results demonstrate that ACT-Now is effective at improving advocacy skills in a mixed cohort of patients and headache fellows, giving them the skills to create advocacy plans and engage with other patients and physicians, payers, and policymakers to create a more understanding, equitable and compassionate world for persons with migraine and other headache diseases.

Clinical Effectiveness of Craniosacral Therapy in Patients with Headache Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To analyze the effectiveness of craniosacral therapy in improving pain and disability among patients with headache disorders. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Osteopathic Medicine Digital Library databases were searched in March 2023. REVIEW METHODS: Two independent reviewers searched the databases and extracted data from randomized controlled trials comparing craniosacral therapy with control or sham interventions. The same reviewers assessed the methodological quality and the risk of bias using the PEDro scale and the Cochrane Collaboration tool, respectively. Grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluations was used to rate the certainty of the evidence. Meta-analyses were conducted using random effects models using RevMan 5.4 software. RESULTS: The searches retrieved 735 studies, and four studies were finally included. The craniosacral therapy provided statistically significant but clinically unimportant change on pain intensity (Mean difference = -1.10; 95% CI: -1.85, -0.35; I2: 44%), and no change on disability or headache effect (Standardized Mean Difference = -0.34; 95% CI -0.70, 0.01; I2: 26%). The certainty of the evidence was downgraded to very low. CONCLUSION: Very low certainty of evidence suggests that craniosacral therapy produces clinically unimportant effects on pain intensity, whereas no significant effects were observed in disability or headache effect.

The impact of primary headaches on disability outcomes: a literature review and meta-analysis to inform future iterations of the Global Burden of Disease study.

BACKGROUND: The burden and disability associated with headaches are conceptualized and measured differently at patients' and populations' levels. At the patients' level, through patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs); at population level, through disability weights (DW) and years lived with a disability (YLDs) developed by the Global Burden of Disease Study (GBD). DW are 0-1 coefficients that address health loss and have been defined through lay descriptions. With this literature review, we aimed to provide a comprehensive analysis of disability in headache disorders, and to present a coefficient referring to patients' disability which might inform future GBD definitions of DW for headache disorders. METHODS: We searched SCOPUS and PubMed for papers published between 2015 and 2023 addressing disability in headache disorders. The selected manuscript included a reference to headache frequency and at least one PROM. A meta-analytic approach was carried out to address relevant differences for the most commonly used PROMs (by headache type, tertiles of medication intake, tertiles of females' percentage in the sample, and age). We developed a 0-1 coefficient based on the MIDAS, on the HIT-6, and on MIDAS + HIT-6 which was intended to promote future DW iterations by the GBD consortium. RESULTS: A total of 366 studies, 596 sub-samples, and more than 133,000 single patients were available, mostly referred to cases with migraine. Almost all PROMs showed the ability to differentiate disability severity across conditions and tertiles of medication intake. The indexes we developed can be used to inform future iterations of DW, in particular considering their ability to differentiate across age and tertiles of medication intake. CONCLUSIONS: Our review provides reference values for the most commonly used PROMS and a data-driven coefficient whose main added value is its ability to differentiate across tertiles of age and medication intake which underlie on one side the increased burden due to aging (it is likely connected to the increased impact of common comorbidities), and by the other side the increased burden due to medication consumption, which can be considered as a proxy for headache severity. Both elements should be considered when describing disability of headache disorders at population levels.

Does pain self-efficacy predict, moderate or mediate outcomes in people with chronic headache; an exploratory analysis of the CHESS trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic headache disorders are disabling. The CHESS trial studied the effects of a short non-pharmacological intervention of education with self-management support for people affected by migraine and/or tension type headache for at least 15 days per month for at least three months. There were no statistically significant effects on the Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6) at 12-months. However, we observed improvement in pain self-efficacy questionnaire (PSEQ) and short-term HIT-6. We explored the impact of the CHESS intervention on PSEQ, and subsequently, on the HIT-6 and chronic headache quality of life questionnaire (CH-QLQ) at four, eighth and 12 months. METHODS: We included all 736 participants from the CHESS trial. We used simple linear regression models to explore the change of HIT-6 and CH-QLQ with treatment and PSEQ at baseline (predictor analysis), and the interaction between treatment and baseline PSEQ (moderator analysis). We considered the change of PSEQ from baseline to four months as a mediator in the mediation analysis. RESULTS: Baseline PSEQ neither predicted nor moderated outcomes. The prediction effect on change of HIT-6 from baseline to 12 months was 0.01 (95% CI, -0.03 to 0.04) and the interaction (moderation) effect was -0.07 (95% CI, -0.15 to 0.002). However, the change of PSEQ from baseline to 4-month mediated the HIT-6 (baseline to 8-, and 12-month) and all components of CH-QLQ (baseline to 8-, and 12-month). The CHESS intervention improved the mediated variable, PSEQ, by 2.34 (95% CI, 0.484 to 4.187) units and this corresponds to an increase of 0.21 (95% CI, 0.03 to 0.45) units in HIT-6 at 12-months. The largest mediated effect was observed on the CH-QLQ Emotional Function, an increase of 1.12 (95% CI, 0.22 to 2.20). CONCLUSIONS: PSEQ was not an effective predictor of outcome. However, change of short-term PSEQ mediated all outcomes, albeit minimally. Future behavioural therapy for chronic headache may need to consider how to achieve larger, and more sustained increases level of self-efficacy than that achieved within the CHESS trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN79708100.

The Global Campaign Against Headache and its future relation to IHS and WHO.

BACKGROUND: Preparations for the Global Campaign Against Headache done jointly with WHO started almost 25 years ago. It was officially incorporated 18 years ago. It is the story of a few dedicated individuals who, together with the World Health Organization, generated epidemiological data all over the world and made use of these data to gradually increase the position of headache disorders, until migraine became number two among all causes of years lost to disability. It is also the story of impressive development of scientific tools, their validation and use in low-income countries. METHODS: Models of care for headache patients were developed that are adaptable and hence can be implemented in future throughout the world. RESULTS: The last phase of the campaign shall use the impressive data set generated to cause real improvement in the healthcare for people with headache throughout the world. The recent World Health Organization initiative: Intersectoral Global Action Plan on Epilepsy and Other Neurological Disorders invites international organizations to collaborate, and headache is mentioned. CONCLUSION: This calls for the International Headache Society and all its national members and all other organizations involved in headache to work together with Lifting the Burden, the organization in charge of the Global Campaign Against Headache.

Update in the understanding of new daily persistent headache.

Background Accumulating evidence suggests various specific triggers may lead to new daily persistent headache (NDPH)-like presentations, suggesting that new daily persistent headache is a heterogenous syndrome, and challenging the concept that new daily persistent headache is a primary headache disorder.Method We searched the PubMed database up to August 2022 for keywords including persistent daily headache with both primary and secondary etiologies. We summarized the literature and provided a narrative review of the clinical presentation, diagnostic work-ups, possible pathophysiology, treatment response, and clinical outcomes.Results and conclusion New daily persistent headache is a controversial but clinically important topic. New daily persistent headache is likely not a single entity but a syndrome with different etiologies. The issue with past studies of new daily persistent headache is that patients with different etiologies/subtypes were pooled together. Different studies may investigate distinct subsets of patients, which renders the inter-study comparison, both positive and negative results, difficult. The identification (and removal) of a specific trigger might provide the opportunity for clinical improvement in certain patients, even when the disease has lasted for months or years. Nonetheless, if there is a specific trigger, it remains unknown or unidentified for a great proportion of the patients. We need to continue to study this unique headache population to better understand underlying pathogenesis and, most importantly, to establish effective treatment strategies that hopefully resolve the continuous cycle of pain.

New daily persistent headache: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the epidemiology, precipitants, phenotype, comorbidities, pathophysiology, treatment, and prognosis of primary new daily persistent headache. METHODS: We searched PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane, and clinicaltrials.gov until 31 December 2022. We included original research studies with any design with at least five participants with new daily persistent headache. We assessed risk of bias using National Institutes of Health Quality Assessment Tools. We used random-effects meta-analysis where suitable to calculate pooled estimates of proportions. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis compliant study is registered with PROSPERO (registration number CRD42022383561). RESULTS: Forty-six studies met inclusion criteria, predominantly case series, including 2155 patients. In 67% (95% CI 57-77) of cases new daily persistent headache has a chronic migraine phenotype, however new daily persistent headache has been found to be less likely than chronic migraine to be associated with a family history of headache, have fewer associated migrainous symptoms, be less vulnerable to medication overuse, and respond less well to injectable and neuromodulatory treatments. CONCLUSIONS: New daily persistent headache is a well described, recognisable disorder, which requires further research into its pathophysiology and treatment. There is a lack of high-quality evidence and, until this exists, we recommend continuing to consider new daily persistent headache a distinct disorder.

Chronic Headache Education and Self-Management Study (CHESS): a process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The Chronic Headache Education and Self-Management Study (CHESS) multicentre randomised trial evaluated the impact a group education and self-management support intervention with a best usual care plus relaxation control for people living with chronic headache disorders (tension type headaches or chronic migraine, with or without medication overuse headache). Here we report the process evaluation exploring potential explanations for the lack of positive effects from the CHESS intervention. METHODS: The CHESS trial included 736 (380 intervention: 356 control) people across the Midlands and London UK. We used a mixed methods approach. Our extensive process evaluation looked at context, reach, recruitment, dose delivered, dose received, fidelity and experiences of participating in the trial, and included participants and trial staff. We also looked for evidence in our qualitative data to investigate whether the original causal assumptions underpinning the intervention were realised. RESULTS: The CHESS trial reached out to a large diverse population and recruited a representative sample. Few people with chronic tension type headaches without migraine were identified and recruited. The expected 'dose'of the intervention was delivered to participants and intervention fidelity was high. Attendance ("dose received") fell below expectation, although 261/380 (69%) received at least at least the pre-identified minimum dose. Intervention participants generally enjoyed being in the groups but there was little evidence to support the causal assumptions underpinning the intervention were realised. CONCLUSIONS: From a process evaluation perspective despite our extensive data collection and analysis, we do not have a clear understanding of why the trial outcome was negative as the intervention was delivered as planned. However, the lack of evidence that the intervention causal assumptions brought about the planned behaviour change may provide some insight. Our data suggests only modest changes in managing headache behaviours and some disparity in how participants engaged with components of the intervention within the timeframe of the study. Moving forwards, we need a better understanding of how those who live with chronic headache can be helped to manage this disabling condition more effectively over time. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN79708100 .

Educational initiatives in headache medicine: A 20-year scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Headache disorders are among the most common and disabling medical conditions worldwide, have a great societal impact and are a common reason to seek medical care. Headache disorders are often misdiagnosed and undertreated, and the number of headache fellowship-trained physicians cannot meet patient demand. Educational initiatives for non-headache-specialist clinicians may be an avenue to increase clinician competency and patient access to appropriate management. OBJECTIVE: To undertake a scoping review of the educational initiatives in headache medicine for medical students, trainees, general practitioners/primary care physicians, and neurologists. METHODS: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines for scoping reviews, an author (M.D.), with the help of a medical librarian, conducted a search of the Embase, Ovid Medline, and PsychInfo databases for articles related to medical educational initiatives on headache medicine in medical students, residents, and physicians over the last 20 years. RESULTS: A total of 17 articles met the inclusion criteria for this scoping review. Six articles were identified for medical students, seven for general practitioners/primary care physicians, one for emergency medicine residents, two for neurology residents, and one for neurologists. Certain educational initiatives were headache-focused while others had headaches as one of the educational topics. Educational content was delivered and assessed via diverse and innovative means, such as flipped classroom, simulation, theatrical performance, repeated quizzing and study, and a formalized headache elective. CONCLUSION: Education initiatives in headache medicine are important to improve competency and patient access to appropriate management of various headache disorders. Future research should focus on using innovative and evidence-based methods of content delivery, knowledge, and procedural assessment, and evaluating changes in practice behaviors.

Treatment of chronic cluster headache with burst and tonic occipital nerve stimulation: A case series.

OBJECTIVES AND BACKGROUND: Chronic cluster headache (CCH) is a rare but severely debilitating primary headache condition. A growing amount of evidence suggests that occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) can offer effective treatment in patients with severe CCH for whom conventional medical therapy does not have a sufficient effect. The paresthesia evoked by conventional (tonic) stimulation can be bothersome and may thus limit therapy. Burst ONS produces paresthesia-free stimulation, but the amount of evidence on the efficacy of burst ONS as a treatment for intractable CCH is scarce. METHODS: In this case series, we report 15 patients with CCH treated with ONS at Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark, from 2013 to 2020. Nine of these received burst stimulation either as primary treatment or as a supplement to tonic stimulation. The results were assessed in terms of the frequency of headache attacks per week and their intensity on the Numeric Rating Scale, as well as the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) with ONS treatment. RESULTS: At a median (range) follow-up of 38 (16-96) months, 12 of the 15 patients (80%) reported a reduction in attack frequency of ≥50% (a reduction from a median of 35 to 1 attack/week, p < 0.001). Seven of these patients were treated with burst ONS. A significant reduction was also seen in maximum pain intensity. Overall, 10 patients stated a clinically important improvement in their headache condition following ONS treatment, rated on the PGIC scale. A total of 16 adverse events (nine of which were in the same patient) were registered. CONCLUSION: Occipital nerve stimulation significantly reduced the number of weekly headache attacks and their intensity. Burst ONS seems to function well alone or as a supplement to conventional tonic ONS as a preventive treatment for CCH; however, larger prospective studies are needed to determine whether the effect can be confirmed and whether the efficacy of the two stimulation paradigms is even.

Management and outcomes of persistent headache after accidental dural puncture in the obstetric population: A 9-year prospective audit.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness and safety of a novel management pathway in the obstetric population presenting to a pain medicine clinic with persistent headache after accidental dural puncture (PHADP). BACKGROUND: Accidental dural puncture (ADP) can result in headaches that persist for months to years. These headaches can be a therapeutic challenge, often cause severe disability, and management pathway remains obscure. METHODS: Obstetric patients with PHADP referred to a pain medicine physician were prospectively followed up in a longitudinal audit of a novel management pathway. ADP reports dated from 2008 until 2019. Initial management included brain imaging and pharmacological agents. Patients who failed to respond were offered greater occipital nerve (GON) block with depot methylprednisolone followed by pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) treatment. A headache diary was completed for 4 weeks prior to commencing treatment and maintained for 24 weeks following an intervention. Data collected included use of epidural blood patch to manage postdural puncture headache, past history of headache, severity of headache, duration of persistent headache, low back pain, and employment status. RESULTS: Over the 9-year period, a cohort of 54 obstetric patients with PHADP with a 16-gauge Tuohy needle were reviewed in the pain clinic. Forty patients presented with chronic daily headache (40/54, 74%). Brain imaging did not reveal any sign of intracranial hypotension in 50 patients (50/54, 93%). Mean follow-up period was 5.7 years. Two patients were lost to follow-up (2/54, 4%). Pharmacological management was effective in 17 patients (17/52, 33%). Medical management failed to improve symptoms in 35 patients (35/52, 67%), and they were offered GON block. Fourteen (14/35, 40%) patients refused the intervention. Nerve block was performed in 21 patients and produced durable benefit lasting 24 weeks in 18 patients (18/21, 86%). Three patients underwent PRF treatment to GONs and all three (100%) reported durable benefit. At final follow-up, mean monthly headache frequency was 5.9 for the medical management group, 8.6 for the refused nerve block group, and 4.1 in patients who received GON treatment (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: ADP can cause chronic headaches that persist beyond 3 years. Interventions targeting the GONs appear to have a role in the management of PHADP.

Headache clinicians' perspectives on the remote monitoring of patients' electronic diary data: A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: We assessed headache clinicians' viewpoints on potential remote access to patients' digital headache diary data and the practicalities of data utilization. BACKGROUND: With the ubiquitous nature of electronic medical records and the existence of remote monitoring (RM) for many medical conditions, there is now the potential for remote symptom monitoring for patients with headache disorders. While patients are asked to utilize headache diaries, clinicians may or may not have access to the data before patient visits, and their perspectives regarding this emerging technology are currently unknown. METHODS: After recruiting participants from the National Institutes of Health Pain Consortium Network, the American Headache Society Special Interest Section listservs, and Twitter and Facebook social media platforms, we conducted 20 semi-structured qualitative interviews of headache providers across the United States from various types of institutions and asked them their perspectives on remote access to patient headache diary data. We transcribed the interviews, which were then coded by two independent coders. Themes and sub-themes were developed using inductive content analysis. RESULTS: All clinicians felt the RM data needed to be integrated into the electronic medical record. Six themes emerged from the interviews: (i) Clinician perspectives on how RM could be beneficial but at other times could create obstacles/challenges, (ii) operationally, data integration could benefit headache care, (iii) there should be initial logistical considerations for bringing RM into clinical care, (iv) education may need to be provided to both patients and clinicians, (v) there are likely research benefits associated with RM, and (vi) additional suggestions for considering potential integration of RM into practice. CONCLUSIONS: While headache clinicians had mixed opinions on the benefits/challenges that RM presents to patient care, patient satisfaction, and visit time, new ideas emerged that may help advance the field.

The Role of Manual Therapies in the Treatment of Headache Disorders.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: A comprehensive headache treatment plan typically requires both medication and non-medication treatment strategies. Manual therapies offer another therapeutic approach to headache treatment. This article reviews the evidence for manual therapies in the treatment of headache disorders. RECENT FINDINGS: Current evidence shows potential benefit from myofascial trigger point injections, myofascial release, and massage for the treatment of various headache types. There is also evidence for strain counterstrain technique, ischemic compression, and spinal manipulative therapies for cervicogenic headache. Although larger randomized clinical trials are necessary for many of these modalities, recent findings show that manual therapies could be an important tool for the treatment of some headache disorders.

New Daily Persistent Headache (NDPH): Unraveling the Complexities of Diagnosis, Pathophysiology, and Treatment.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The current article aims to provide an overview of new daily persistent headache (NDPH), with a particular emphasis on its pathophysiology, evaluation, and current treatment options. RECENT FINDINGS: NDPH is an uncommon and heterogeneous condition associated with various comorbidities and is of great significance due to its prolonged duration and high severity. Variable causes and clinical aspects of NDPH may reflect differences in its underlying pathophysiological mechanisms, including genetics, environmental triggers, neuroinflammation, and brain changes. When assessing a patient with NDPH, potential triggers, past medical history, and differential diagnosis should be carefully considered. Non-pharmacological interventions aimed to improve diet, sleep patterns, and reduce consumption of caffeine and alcohol are recommended for all patients. Nerve blockade and nerve stimulation seem to be more efficacious in children than adults. Antiviral medications and neuroinflammation-targeting treatments may be helpful, particularly, when an infectious disease or severe inflammation is suspected. NDPH patients with concurrent affective disorders may benefit from treatment with serotonin reuptake inhibitors, serotonin/norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, or benzodiazepines. Cerebrospinal-fluid-lowering medications may be useful for headaches started with a thunderclap or a Valsalva maneuver. Possible treatments for refractory NDPH include intravenous ketamine or lidocaine, onabotulinumtoxinA, and calcitonin gene-related peptide antibodies. Considering the variety of NDPH, it is critical to properly screen patients for correct diagnosis. Proper identification of potential mimics may enable precise therapy opportunities, yet there is no gold standard treatment for NDPH. Further well-designed studies are needed to elucidate the underlying mechanisms and develop effective treatment strategies for NDPH.

Neck-Shoulder Region Training for Chronic Headache in Women: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVES: We investigated whether a specific exercise program for the neck-shoulder region reduces headache intensity, frequency, and duration, and how it influences neck disability among women with chronic headache compared to a control group. DESIGN: Two-center randomized controlled trial. SUBJECTS: 116 working-age women. INTERVENTION: The exercise group (n = 57) performed a home-based program with six progressive exercise modules, over 6 months. The control group (n = 59) underwent six placebo-dosed transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation sessions. Both groups performed stretching exercises. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was pain intensity of headache, assessed using the Numeric Pain Rating Scale. Secondary outcomes were frequency and duration of weekly headaches, and neck disability assessed using the Neck Disability Index. Generalized linear mixed models were used. RESULTS: Mean pain intensity at baseline was 4.7 (95% CI 4.4 to 5.0) in the exercise group and 4.8 (4.5 to 5.1) in the control group. After 6 months the decrease was slight with no between-group difference. Headache frequency decreased from 4.5 (3.9 to 5.1) to 2.4 (1.8 to 3.0) days/week in the exercise group, and from 4.4 (3.6 to 5.1) to 3.0 (2.4 to 3.6) in the control group (between-group p = 0.017). Headache duration decreased in both groups, with no between-group difference. Greater improvement in the Neck Disability Index was found in the exercise group (between-group change -1.6 [95% CI -3.1 to -0.2] points). CONCLUSION: The progressive exercise program almost halved headache frequency. The exercise program could be recommended as one treatment option for women with chronic headache.

Rethinking headache as a global public health case model for reaching the SDG 3 HEALTH by 2030.

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development sets out, through 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), a path for the prosperity of people and the planet. SDG 3 in particular aims to ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages and includes several targets to enhance health. This review presents a "headache-tailored" perspective on how to achieve SDG 3 by focusing on six specific actions: targeting chronic headaches; reducing the overuse of acute pain-relieving medications; promoting the education of healthcare professionals; granting access to medication in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC); implementing training and educational opportunities for healthcare professionals in low and middle income countries; building a global alliance against headache disorders. Addressing the burden of headache disorders directly impacts on populations' health, as well as on the possibility to improve the productivity of people aged below 50, women in particular. Our analysis pointed out several elements, and included: moving forward from frequency-based parameters to define headache severity; recognizing and managing comorbid diseases and risk factors; implementing a disease management multi-modal management model that incorporates pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments; early recognizing and managing the overuse of acute pain-relieving medications; promoting undergraduate, postgraduate, and continuing medical education of healthcare professionals with specific training on headache; and promoting a culture that favors the recognition of headaches as diseases with a neurobiological basis, where this is not yet recognized. Making headache care more sustainable is an achievable objective, which will require multi-stakeholder collaborations across all sectors of society, both health-related and not health-related. Robust investments will be needed; however, considering the high prevalence of headache disorders and the associated disability, these investments will surely improve multiple health outcomes and lift development and well-being globally.

Cross-sectional, hospital-based analysis of headache types using ICHD-3 criteria in the Middle East, Asia, and Africa: the Head-MENAA study.

BACKGROUND: Headaches are frequent neurological disorders that are yet to be unveiled and treated comprehensively worldwide. Bearing in mind that the distribution of headache subtypes in neurology clinics (NC) is essential for planning appropriate diagnostic and therapeutic approaches, the primary goals of this multi-centric study are to carry out inter-regional comparisons by using current diagnostic criteria with evaluations of neurologists to delineate headache burden. METHODS: A cross-sectional study between April 1 and May 16, 2022 was conducted with the participation of 13 countries from the Middle East, Asia, and Africa. Patients were included in the study on a specific day each week during five consecutive weeks. All volunteers over the age of 18 and whose primary cause for admission was headache were examined. The patients admitted to NC or referred from emergency services/other services were evaluated by neurologists by means of the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-3) criteria. RESULTS: Among the 13,794 patients encountered in NC, headache was the primary complaint in 30.04%. The headache patients' mean age was 42.85 ± 14.89 (18-95 years), and 74.3% were female. According to the ICHD-3 criteria, 86.7% of the main group had primary headache disorders, 33.5% had secondary headaches, 4% had painful cranial neuropathies along with other facial and headaches, and 5.2% had headaches included in the appendix part showing some overlapping conditions. While the most common primary headache was migraine without aura (36.8%), the most common secondary headache was medication-overuse headache (MOH) (9.8%). Headaches attributed to COVID-19, its secondary complications, or vaccines continue to occur at rates of 1.2%-3.5% in current neurology practice. Pain severity was significantly lower in Ivory Coast and Sudan than in Türkiye, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, Iran, Egypt, Senegal, Tatarstan, and Azerbaijan (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The study showed that migraine is still the most common motive for admissions to NC in different regions. Furthermore, MOH, an avoidable disorder, is the most common secondary headache type and appears to be a significant problem in all regions. Remarkably, pain perception differs between regions, and pain intensity is lower in Africa than in other regions.

Feasibility and Efficacy of Telephone Based Follow-up in Patients with Headache - A Longitudinal Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Chronic headache greatly affects the quality of life and also constitutes a significant burden on the health system. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of telephone-based follow-up in a cohort of headache patients in India. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a longitudinal cohort study of patients with episodic headache with one physical visit in the neurology outpatient services in the last year. Two neurologists conducted the telephone follow up (TFU) of included patients 12 weeks apart. We evaluated the following: (1) objective characterization of headache, (2) coexistent depression and anxiety, (3) patient satisfaction, (4) treatment adherence, and (5) changes in medications. RESULTS: A total of 214 out of 274 eligible patients were included in the cohort. The mean age was 31.74 ± 7.77 years (18-45), and 164 (77%) were females. Migraine without aura was the most common diagnosis in 159 (74%). The mean disease duration was 78.01 ± 70.15 months (8-360). Concurrent depression and anxiety were noted in 87 (40.6%) and 45 (21%) of the patients, respectively. There was a significant improvement in the headache frequency (23.82 vs. 1.06, P < 0.001), severity (7.21 vs. 2.62, P = 0.032), and Headache Impact 6-item score (58.12 vs. 38.01, P = 0.014) at baseline and second follow-up. The satisfaction level to TFU in the first and second interviews was 94.4% and 97.2%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Telephone-based follow-up is a feasible alternative for repeat outpatient consultation of headache patients.

Mapping between headache specific and generic preference-based health-related quality of life measures.

BACKGROUND: The Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) and the Chronic Headache Questionnaire (CH-QLQ) measure headache-related quality of life but are not preference-based and therefore cannot be used to generate health utilities for cost-effectiveness analyses. There are currently no established algorithms for mapping between the HIT-6 or CH-QLQ and preference-based health-related quality-of-life measures for chronic headache population. METHODS: We developed algorithms for generating EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D utilities from the HIT-6 and the CHQLQ using both direct and response mapping approaches. A multi-stage model selection process was used to assess the predictive accuracy of the models. The estimated mapping algorithms were derived to generate UK tariffs and was validated using the Chronic Headache Education and Self-management Study (CHESS) trial dataset. RESULTS: Several models were developed that reasonably accurately predict health utilities in this context. The best performing model for predicting EQ-5D-5L utility scores from the HIT-6 scores was a Censored Least Absolute Deviations (CLAD) (1) model that only included the HIT-6 score as the covariate (mean squared error (MSE) 0.0550). The selected model for CH-QLQ to EQ-5D-5L was the CLAD (3) model that included CH-QLQ summary scores, age, and gender, squared terms and interaction terms as covariates (MSE 0.0583). The best performing model for predicting SF-6D utility scores from the HIT-6 scores was the CLAD (2) model that included the HIT-6 score and age and gender as covariates (MSE 0.0102). The selected model for CH-QLQ to SF-6D was the OLS (2) model that included CH-QLQ summary scores, age, and gender as covariates (MSE 0.0086). CONCLUSION: The developed algorithms enable the estimation of EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D utilities from two headache-specific questionnaires where preference-based health-related quality of life data are missing. However, further work is needed to help define the best approach to measuring health utilities in headache studies.