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.

Machine learning identifies factors most associated with seeking medical care for migraine: Results of the OVERCOME (US) study.

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.

Artificial Intelligence and Virtual Reality in Headache Disorder Diagnosis, Classification, and Management.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review provides an overview of the current and future role of artificial intelligence (AI) and virtual reality (VR) in addressing the complexities inherent to the diagnosis, classification, and management of headache disorders. RECENT FINDINGS: Through machine learning and natural language processing approaches, AI offers unprecedented opportunities to identify patterns within complex and voluminous datasets, including brain imaging data. This technology has demonstrated promise in optimizing diagnostic approaches to headache disorders and automating their classification, an attribute particularly beneficial for non-specialist providers. Furthermore, AI can enhance headache disorder management by enabling the forecasting of acute events of interest, such as migraine headaches or medication overuse, and by guiding treatment selection based on insights from predictive modeling. Additionally, AI may facilitate the streamlining of treatment efficacy monitoring and enable the automation of real-time treatment parameter adjustments. VR technology, on the other hand, offers controllable and immersive experiences, thus providing a unique avenue for the investigation of the sensory-perceptual symptomatology associated with certain headache disorders. Moreover, recent studies suggest that VR, combined with biofeedback, may serve as a viable adjunct to conventional treatment. Addressing challenges to the widespread adoption of AI and VR in headache medicine, including reimbursement policies and data privacy concerns, mandates collaborative efforts from stakeholders to enable the equitable, safe, and effective utilization of these technologies in advancing headache disorder care. This review highlights the potential of AI and VR to support precise diagnostics, automate classification, and enhance management strategies for headache disorders.

Four Decades of Occipital Nerve Stimulation for Headache Disorders: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Chronic headaches are a significant source of disability worldwide. Despite the development of conventional strategies, a subset of patients remain refractory and/or experience side effects following these treatments. Hence, occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) should be considered as an alternative strategy for intractable chronic headaches. This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the effectiveness, safety, mechanisms and practical application of ONS for the treatment of headache disorders. RECENT FINDINGS: Overall response rate of ONS is 35.7-100%, 17-100%, and 63-100% in patients with cluster headache, chronic migraine and occipital neuralgia respectively. Regarding the long-term effectivity in all groups, 41.6-88.0% of patients remain responders after ≥ 18.3 months. The most frequently reported adverse events include lead migration/fracture (13%) and local pain (7.3%). Based on our results, ONS can be considered a safe and effective treatment for chronic intractable headache disorders. To support more widespread application of ONS, additional research with larger sample sizes should be conducted.

Virtual Reality in Acute and Chronic Pain Medicine: An Updated Review.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review critically analyzes the recent literature on virtual reality's (VR) use in acute and chronic pain management, offering insights into its efficacy, applications, and limitations. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent studies, including meta-analyses and randomized controlled trials, have demonstrated VR's effectiveness in reducing pain intensity in various acute pain scenarios, such as procedural/acute pain and in chronic pain conditions. The role of factors such as immersion and presence in enhancing VR's efficacy has been emphasized. Further benefits have been identified in the use of VR for assessment as well as symptom gathering through conversational avatars. However, studies are limited, and strong conclusions will require further investigation. VR is emerging as a promising non-pharmacological intervention in pain management for acute and chronic pain. However, its long-term efficacy, particularly in chronic pain management, remains an area requiring further research. Key findings highlight that VR programs vary in efficacy depending on the specificity of the origin of pain.

Telehealth and Virtual Reality Technologies in Chronic Pain Management: A Narrative Review.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review provides medical practitioners with an overview of the present and emergent roles of telehealth and associated virtual reality (VR) applications in chronic pain (CP) management, particularly in the post-COVID-19 healthcare landscape. RECENT FINDINGS: Accumulated evidence points to the efficacy of now well-established telehealth modalities, such as videoconferencing, short messaging service (SMS), and mobile health (mHealth) applications in complementing remote CP care. More recently, and although still in early phases of clinical implementation, a wide range of VR-based interventions have demonstrated potential for improving the asynchronous remote management of CP. Additionally, VR-associated technologies at the leading edge of science and engineering, such as VR-assisted biofeedback, haptic technology, high-definition three-dimensional (HD3D) conferencing, VR-enabled interactions in a Metaverse, and the use of wearable monitoring devices, herald a new era for remote, synchronous patient-physician interactions. These advancements hold the potential to facilitate remote physical examinations, personalized remote care, and innovative interventions such as ultra-realistic biofeedback. Despite the promise of VR-associated technologies, several limitations remain, including the paucity of robust long-term effectiveness data, heterogeneity of reported pain-related outcomes, challenges with scalability and insurance coverage, and demographic-specific barriers to patient acceptability. Future research efforts should be directed toward mitigating these limitations to facilitate the integration of telehealth-associated VR into the conventional management of CP. Despite ongoing barriers to widespread adoption, recent evidence suggests that VR-based interventions hold an increasing potential to complement and enhance the remote delivery of CP care.

Pre-treatment non-ictal cephalic allodynia identifies responders to prophylactic treatment of chronic and episodic migraine patients with galcanezumab: A prospective quantitative sensory testing study (NCT04271202).

BACKGROUND: Migraine is a complex neurological disorder involving generalized abnormalities in processing sensory information. Adopting evidence that central sensitization imposes major hurdles in the treatment of migraine, we hypothesized that it is the non-ictal (rather than ictal) allodynia that may determine the outcome of migraine prevention with peripherally-acting drugs. METHODS: To test this hypothesis, we used Quantitative Sensory Testing to determine whether it is possible to identify a patient's response to prophylactic treatment with galcanezumab based on presence/absence of cephalic and/or extracephalic allodynia during the pre-treatment non-ictal phase of migraine. RESULTS: Using strict criteria for allodynia (heat 32-40°C, cold 32-20°C, mechanical <60 g), we report that (a) the incidence of pre-treatment non-ictal cephalic allodynia was 21% in the 24 responders (>50% decrease in monthly migraine days) and 85% in the 19 non-responders; (b) the incidence of non-ictal extracephalic allodynia distinguishes responders from non-responders less accurately; and that (c) the incidence of non-ictal cephalic allodynia was similar in the chronic migraine and high-frequency episodic migraine groups. CONCLUSIONS: Clinically, the findings suggest that presence/absence of non-ictal allodynia can be used to identify galcanezumab responders with nearly 80% accuracy and galcanezumab non-responders with nearly 85% accuracy. Mechanistically, the presence of non-ictal allodynia (reflecting a state of activity-independent central sensitization) in both chronic migraine and high-frequency episodic migraine patients raises the possibility that the state of non-ictal allodynia may be attributed to physiological properties of central trigeminovascular neurons that are due to the genetic load of the individual patient rather than their migraine frequency.

Prevalence and clinical features of hemicrania continua in clinic-based studies: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the relative frequencies of hemicrania continua and its clinical features in adult patients who were evaluated for headache in a clinic-based setting. METHODS: PubMed and Embase were searched for observational, clinic-based studies published between 1 January 2004 and 1 February 2022, that reported on the relative frequencies of hemicrania continua and its clinical features. Two independent investigators (HMA and SA-K) screened titles, abstracts, and full text-articles. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted to estimate pooled relative frequencies of hemicrania continua and its clinical features across clinic-based studies. RESULTS: Eleven clinic-based studies were deemed eligible for inclusion. Of these, eight studies reported on the relative frequency of hemicrania continua among adult patients (n = 9854) who were evaluated for headache in a tertiary care unit. The pooled relative frequency of hemicrania continua was found to be 1.8% (95% CI; 1.0-3.3). Considerable heterogeneity was noted across studies (I2 = 89.8%). The three most common symptoms associated with hemicrania continua were lacrimation (72.3%), conjunctival injection (69.8%), and restlessness/agitation (60.2%). CONCLUSION: The findings of this meta-analysis suggest that there is limited epidemiologic data on the relative frequencies of hemicrania continua and its clinical features. Standardized data acquisition and reporting are needed to estimate prevalence rates more accurately and to better understand epidemiologic patterns. This, in turn, should increase awareness of the impact that hemicrania continua has in clinical practice.

OnabotulinumtoxinA alters inflammatory gene expression and immune cells in chronic headache patients.

Occipital headache, the perception of pain in the back of the head, is commonly described by patients diagnosed with migraine, tension-type headache, and occipital neuralgia. The greater and lesser occipital nerves play central role in the pathophysiology of occipital headache. In the clinical setup, such headaches are often treated with onabotulinumtoxinA, a neurotoxin capable of disrupting ability of nociceptors to get activated and/or release proinflammatory neuropeptides. Attempting to understand better onabotulinumtoxinA mechanism of action in reducing headache frequency, we sought to determine its effects on expression of inflammatory genes in injected occipital tissues. To achieve this goal, we injected 40 units of onabotulinumtoxinA into four muscle groups (occipitalis, splenius capitis, semispinalis capitis, and trapezius muscles-all located on one side of the occiput) of patients with chronic bilateral occipital headache scheduled for occipital nerve decompression surgery 1 month later. At the time of surgery, we collected discarded muscle, fascia and periosteum tissues from respective locations on both sides of the neck and occiput and performed targeted transcriptome analyses to determine expression level of inflammatory genes in onabotulinumtoxinA-injected and onabotulinumA-uninjected tissues. We found that (i) onabotulinumtoxinA alters expression of inflammatory genes largely in periosteum, minimally in muscle and not at all in fascia; (ii) expression of inflammatory genes in uninjected periosteum and muscle is significantly higher in historical onabotulinumA responders than historical non-responders; (iii) in historical responders' periosteum, onabotulinumA decreases expression of nearly all significantly altered genes, gene sets that define well recognized inflammatory pathways (e.g. pathways involved in adaptive/innate immune response, lymphocyte activation, and cytokine, chemokine, NF-kB, TNF and interferon signalling), and abundance of 12 different immune cell classes (e.g. neutrophils, macrophages, cytotoxic T-, NK-, Th1-, B- and dendritic-cells), whereas in historical non-responders it increases gene expression but to a level that is nearly identical to the level observed in the uninjected periosteum and muscle of historical responders; and surprisingly (iv) that the anti-inflammatory effects of onabotulinumA are far less apparent in muscles and absent in fascia. These findings suggest that in historical responders' periosteum-but not muscle or fascia-inflammation contributes to the pathophysiology of occipital headache, and that further consideration should be given to the possibility that onabotulinumA mechanism of action in migraine prevention could also be achieved through its ability to reduce pre-existing inflammation, likely through localized interaction that lead to reduction in abundance of immune cells in the calvarial periosteum.

Migraine and subsequent head and neck cancer: A nationwide population-based cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: The association of migraine with the risk of certain cancer has been reported. The aim of this pilot study was to examine the associations between migraine and the onset of head and neck cancers (HNC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 1755 individuals were identified through a nationwide population-based cohort registry in Taiwan between 2000 and 2013. The primary end point variable was new-onset head and neck cancers in patients with migraine versus non-migraine controls. Cox proportional hazard regression was used to derive the risk of HNC. Subgroup analyses were performed to determine subpopulations at risk of migraine-associated HNC. Sub-outcome analyses were carried out to provide the subtypes of migraine-associated HNC. Propensity score matching was utilized to validate the findings. RESULTS: A total of four patients out of 351 patients with migraine and seven out of 1404 non-migraine controls developed HNC. The incidence of HNC was higher in patients with migraine than that in non-migraine controls (108.93 vs. 48.77 per 100,000 person-years) (adjusted hazard ratio, aHR = 2.908, 95% CI = 0.808-10.469; p = 0.102). The risk of HNC in patients with migraine with aura (aHR = 5.454, 95% CI = 0.948-26.875; p = 0.264) and without aura (aHR = 2.777, 95% CI = 0.755-8.473; p = 0.118) was revealed. The incidence of non-nasopharyngeal HNC secondary to migraine (112.79 per 100,000 person-years) was higher than that of nasopharyngeal cancer secondary to migraine (105.33 per 100,000 person-years). CONCLUSION: A higher incidence of HNC was observed in a small sample of patients with migraine, especially in those with migraine with aura. Migraine-associated HNC included non-nasopharyngeal HNC. Studies with a larger sample are needed to confirm the finding of the high risk of HNC in people with migraine.

Galcanezumab effects on incidence of headache after occurrence of triggers, premonitory symptoms, and aura in responders, non-responders, super-responders, and super non-responders.

BACKGROUND: The goal of this observational, open-label, cohort study was to determine whether prophylactic migraine treatment with galcanezumab, a peripherally acting drug, alters the incidence of premonitory symptoms, and/or occurrence of headache after exposure to triggers or aura episodes in treatment-responders (≥ 50% reduction in monthly migraine days [MMD]), super-responders (≥ 70%), non-responders (< 50%) and super non-responders (< 30%). METHODS: Participants were administered electronic daily headache diaries to document migraine days and associated symptoms one month before and during the three months of treatment. Questionnaires were used to identify conscious prodromal and trigger events that were followed by headache prior to vs. after 3 months of treatment. RESULTS: After 3 months of galcanezumab treatment, (a) the incidence of premonitory symptoms that were followed by headache decreased by 48% in the 27 responders vs. 28% in the 19 non-responders, and by 50% in the 11 super-responders vs. 12% in the 8 super non-responders; (b) the incidence of visual and sensory aura that were followed by headache was reduced in responders, non-responders, and super-responders, but not in super non-responders; (c) the number of triggers followed by headache decreased by 38% in responders vs. 13% in non-responders, and by 31% in super-responders vs. 4% in super non-responders; and (d) some premonitory symptoms (e.g., cognitive impairment, irritability, fatigue) and triggers (e.g., stress, sleeping too little, bright light, aura) were followed by headache only in super non-responders. CONCLUSIONS: Mechanistically, these findings suggest that even a mild decrease in migraine frequency is sufficient to partially reverse the excitability and responsivity of neurons involved in the generation of certain triggers and potentially premonitory symptoms of migraine. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04271202. Registration date: February 10, 2020.

Debate: differences and similarities between tension-type headache and migraine.

Tension-type headache (TTH) and migraine are two common primary headaches distinguished by clinical characteristics according to the 3rd edition of the International Classification of Headache Disorders. Migraine is identified by specific features such as being more prevalent in females, being aggravated by physical activity, certain genetic factors, having photophobia, phonophobia, nausea, vomiting, or aura, and responding to specific drugs. Nonetheless, TTH and migraine share some common characteristics, such as onset occurring in the 20 s, and being triggered by psychological factors like stress, moderate pain severity, and mild nausea in chronic TTH. Both conditions involve the trigeminovascular system in their pathophysiology. However, distinguishing between TTH and migraine in clinical practice, research, and epidemiological studies can be challenging, as there is a lack of specific diagnostic tests and biomarkers. Moreover, both conditions may coexist, further complicating the diagnostic process. This review aims to explore the similarities and differences in the pathophysiology, epidemiology, burden and disability, comorbidities, and responses to pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments of TTH and migraine. The review also discusses future research directions to address the diagnostic challenges and improve the understanding and management of these conditions.

Migraine: epidemiology and systems of care.

Migraine is a neurovascular disorder that affects over 1 billion people worldwide. Its widespread prevalence, and associated disability, have a range of negative and substantial effects not only on those immediately affected but also on their families, colleagues, employers, and society. To reduce this global burden, concerted efforts are needed to implement and improve migraine care that is supported by informed health-care policies. In this Series paper, we summarise the data on migraine epidemiology, including estimates of its very considerable burden on the global economy. First, we present the challenges that continue to obstruct provision of adequate care worldwide. Second, we outline the advantages of integrated and coordinated systems of care, in which primary and specialist care complement and support each other; the use of comprehensive referral and linkage protocols should enable continuity of care between these systems levels. Finally, we describe challenges in low and middle-income countries, including countries with poor public health education, inadequate access to medication, and insufficient formal education and training of health-care professionals resulting in misdiagnosis, mismanagement, and wastage of resources.

Prevalence of neck pain in migraine: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Neck pain is a frequent complaint among patients with migraine and seems to be correlated with the headache frequency. Neck pain is more common in patients with chronic migraine compared to episodic migraine. However, prevalence of neck pain in patients with migraine varies among studies. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence of neck pain in patients with migraine and non-headache controls in observational studies. METHODS: A systematic literature search on PubMed and Embase was conducted to identify studies reporting prevalence of neck pain in migraine patients. This review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Data was extracted by two independent investigators and results were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021264898). RESULTS: The search identified 2490 citations of which 30 contained relevant original population based and clinic-based data. Among these, 24 studies provided data eligible for the analysis. The meta-analysis for clinic-based studies demonstrated that the pooled relative frequency of neck pain was 77.0% (95% CI: 69.0-86.4) in the migraine group and 23.2% (95% CI:18.6-28.5) in the non-headache control group. Neck pain was more frequent in patients with chronic migraine (87.0%, 95% CI: 77.0-93.0) compared to episodic migraine (77.0%, 95% CI: 69.0-84.0). Neck pain was 12 times more prevalent in migraine patients compared to non-headache controls and two times more prevalent in patients with chronic migraine compared to episodic migraine. The calculated heterogeneity (I2 values) ranged from 61.3% to 72.0%. CONCLUSION: Neck pain is a frequent complaint among patients with migraine. The heterogeneity among the studies emphasize important aspects to consider in future research of neck pain in migraine to improve our understanding of the driving mechanisms of neck pain in a major group of migraine patients.

Non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation for prevention of migraine: The multicenter, randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled PREMIUM II trial.

AIM: Evaluate the efficacy and safety of non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation for migraine prevention. METHODS: After completing a 4-week diary run-in period, adults who had migraine with or without aura were randomly assigned to receive active non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation or sham therapy during a 12-week double-blind period. RESULTS: Of 336 enrolled participants, 113 (active, n = 56; sham, n = 57) completed ≥70 days of the double-blind period and were ≥66% adherent with treatment, comprising the prespecified modified intention-to-treat population. The COVID-19 pandemic led to early trial termination, and the population was ∼60% smaller than the statistical target for full power. Mean reduction in monthly migraine days (primary endpoint) was 3.12 for the active group and 2.29 days for the sham group (difference, -0.83; p = 0.2329). Responder rate (i.e. the percentage of participants with a ≥50% reduction in migraine days) was greater in the active group (44.87%) than the sham group (26.81%; p = 0.0481). Prespecified subgroup analysis suggested that participants with aura responded preferentially. No serious device-related adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest clinical utility of non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation for migraine prevention, particularly for patients who have migraine with aura, and reinforce the well-established safety and tolerability profile of this therapy.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03716505).

Diagnosis, consultation, treatment, and impact of migraine in the US: Results of the OVERCOME (US) study.

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.

Total tenderness score and pressure pain thresholds in persistent post-traumatic headache attributed to mild traumatic brain injury.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether persistent post-traumatic headache attributed to mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) is associated with more pronounced pericranial tenderness and lower pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) in the head and neck region, compared with healthy controls. METHODS: Patients with persistent post-traumatic headache (n = 100) and age- and gender-matched healthy controls (n = 100) were included between July 2018 and June 2019. Total tenderness score (TTS) was used to assess pericranial tenderness by bilateral manual palpation in eight muscles or tendon insertions. Summation was then used to calculate a TTS from 0 to 48 based on individual right- and left-sided scores; higher TTS score indicated more pronounced pericranial tenderness. PPTs were examined in m. temporalis and m. trapezius (upper and middle part) using an electronic pressure algometer that applies increasing blunt pressure at a constant rate. RESULTS: The TTS score was higher in patients with persistent post-traumatic headache (median, 21; IQR, 12-31), compared with healthy controls (median, 10; IQR, 6-17; P < .001). PPTs were lower in patients with persistent post-traumatic headache than in controls in both the left-sided m. temporalis (mean ± SD, 157.5 ± 59.9 vs. 201.1 ± 65.2; P < .001) and right-sided m. temporalis (mean ± SD, 159.5 ± 63.8 vs. 212.3 ± 61.9; P < .001). Furthermore, patients with persistent post-traumatic headache also had lower left- and right-sided PPTs in the upper as well as middle part of m. trapezius, compared with healthy controls; all P values were .05 or less. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with persistent post-traumatic headache, pericranial tenderness was more pronounced and PPTs in the head and neck region were lower than in healthy controls free of headache and mild TBI. Further research is needed to better understand the involvement of pericranial myofascial nociceptors in the disease mechanisms underlying post-traumatic headache.

Survey of Pain Medicine Specialists' Familiarity with Migraine Management.

OBJECTIVE: Pain specialists treat patients with headache and interface with those who use opioids more so than neurologists and headache specialists. We assessed the headache medicine knowledge and needs of pain specialists. DESIGN/SETTING: Cross-sectional online survey. SUBJECTS: Members of the American Academy of Pain Medicine. METHODS: Survey was based on a prior survey of primary care providers' knowledge and needs and was iteratively updated by four headache specialists, two with pain medicine affiliations. RESULTS: Of the 105 respondents, 71.4% were physicians, 34.3% were women, and they averaged 20.0 ± 13.6 years in practice. The most common specialty was anesthesia (36.1%, n = 35/97) followed by neurology (14.4%, n = 14/97). About half of providers (55.7%, n = 34/61 and 53.3%, n = 32/60) were familiar with the American Academy of Neurology Guidelines for pharmacological migraine prevention and the Choosing Wisely Campaign recommendations for limiting neuroimaging and opioids. Less than half of all providers (39.7%, n = 23/58) were familiar with the American Headache Society guidelines for emergency management of migraine. Providers were aware of Level A evidence-based nonpharmacological therapies, with over three-fourths recognizing cognitive behavioral therapy (80.7%, n = 50/62) and biofeedback (75.8%, n = 47/62) as evidence-based interventions. About 80% of providers (n = 50/64) estimate making migraine diagnoses in ≤50% of their patients with headache. Providers consider starting preventive headache therapy at 7.1 ± 3.9 days/month and report referring 34.3%±34.2% of patients to behavioral interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Dissemination and implementation of headache guidelines is needed for pain medicine specialists. Providers may need help diagnosing migraine based on currently accepted guidelines and referring for evidence-based behavioral therapies.

Psychiatric and cognitive comorbidities of persistent post-traumatic headache attributed to mild traumatic brain injury.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association of psychiatric and cognitive comorbidities with persistent post-traumatic headache (PTH) attributed to mild traumatic brain injury (TBI). METHODS: A total of 100 patients with persistent PTH attributed to mild TBI and 100 age- and gender-matched healthy controls free of mild TBI were enrolled between July 2018 and June 2019. Quality of sleep was evaluated using the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, while symptoms of anxiety and depression were assessed using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Cognitive impairment was evaluated using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment questionnaire, while post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was assessed using the Harvard Trauma Questionnaire. RESULTS: In 100 patients with persistent PTH, 85% reported poor quality sleep, compared with 42% of healthy controls (P < 0.01). The relative frequency of probable to high risk of anxiety was 52% in the persistent PTH group vs. 8% in healthy controls (P < 0.01), while the relative frequency of probable to high risk of depression was 42% in the persistent PTH group vs. 2% in healthy controls (P < 0.01). Furthermore, 27% of the patients with persistent PTH had mild cognitive impairment while 10% had probable PTSD. CONCLUSIONS: Poor quality of sleep as well as symptoms suggestive of anxiety and depression were more common in patients with persistent PTH than healthy controls. Clinicians should screen patients with persistent PTH for these comorbidities and develop treatment plans that account for their presence.

Migraine treatment and the risk of postoperative, pain-related hospital readmissions in migraine patients.

BACKGROUND: Migraine treatment may mitigate migraine and associated pain in the perioperative period. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to estimate the effect of perioperative acute and prophylactic migraine treatment on the risk of postoperative 30-day hospital readmission with an admitting diagnosis specifying any pain complaints among migraine patients. DESIGN: Electronic health records were analysed for 21,932 adult migraine patients undergoing surgery between 2005 and 2017 at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, USA. METHODS: Perioperative abortive migraine treatment was defined as guideline-recommended medication (triptan, ergotamine, acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug) prescription after surgery, within 30 days after discharge and prior readmission. Perioperatively continued prophylactic migraine treatment was defined as prescription both prior to surgery and perioperatively for recommended medications (beta-blockers, antidepressants, antiepileptics, onabotulinumtoxin A). RESULTS: Overall, 10,921 (49.8%) patients received a prescription for abortive migraine drugs. Of these, 1.2% and 1.5% of patients with and without such prescription were readmitted for pain, respectively. Patients with abortive treatment had lower odds of pain-related readmission (adjusted odds ratio 0.63 [95% confidence interval 0.49-0.81]). Prophylactic migraine treatment showed no effect on pain-related readmission independently of acute treatment (adjusted odds ratio 0.97 [95% confidence interval 0.72-1.32]). CONCLUSIONS: Migraine patients undergoing surgery with a perioperative prescription for abortive migraine drugs were at decreased risk of pain-related hospital readmission.