Peripheral nerve stimulation registry for intractable migraine headache (RELIEF): a real-life perspective on the utility of occipital nerve stimulation for chronic migraine.

BACKGROUND: Migraine is common and ranked as the first cause of disability in people under fifty. Despite significant advances in its pharmacological treatment, it often remains intractable. Neuromodulation is one option considered in the management of those patients. OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and efficacy of neuromodulation in the treatment of intractable chronic migraine using the Abbott occipital nerve stimulator. METHODS: Recruitment took place in 18 centres in 6 countries. Patients over the age of 18 who had failed three or more preventative drugs, had at least moderate disability based on MIDAS or HIT-6 score and were implanted with an Abbott neurostimulator were included in the study. Patients were followed up for a maximum of 24 months. Data were collected on adverse events, headache relief, headache days, quality of life, migraine disability, satisfaction and quality of life. RESULTS: One hundred twelve patients were included, 79 female and 33 male, with 45 patients reaching the maximum follow-up of 24 months. At 3 months, 33.7% were satisfied or very satisfied with the procedure with 43.0% reporting improved or greatly improved quality of life. 67.5% indicated that they would undergo the procedure again with satisfaction peaking at 9 months when 49.3% were satisfied or very satisfied with the procedure. At 24 months, 46.7% of available patients were satisfied or very satisfied with the procedure-18% of enrolled patients. The adverse events were however frequent with incidences of 37%, 47% and 31% respectively for hardware-, biological and stimulation-related side effects. CONCLUSION: Neuromodulation can be beneficial for selected patients with intractable chronic migraine although frequent complications have been consistently reported across studies. Further research focusing on development of better hardware and technique optimisation and in particular reliable randomised trials with significantly longer follow-ups are warranted in this field.

Service use and costs for people with headache: a UK primary care study.

This paper aims to estimate the service and social costs of headache presenting in primary care and to identify predictors of headache costs. Patients were recruited from GP practices in England and service use and lost employment recorded. Predictors of cost were identified using regression models. Service and social costs were available on 288 and 282 patients, respectively. Average service costs over 3 months were £117 whilst total costs (including lost production) were £582. Patients referred to neurologists had service costs that were £82 higher than those not referred (90% CI £36-£128). Costs including lost employment were higher by £150, but this was not significant (90% CI -£139-£439). The annual mean service and social costs, weighted to represent population rates of referral, were £468 and £2328, respectively. Higher costs were significantly related to pain. Age was linked to higher service costs and lower social costs. The figures extrapolated to the whole of the UK suggest £956 million due to service use and £4.8 billion including lost employment. These are likely to be underestimates because many people experiencing headaches do not consult their GP.

Migraine Intervention With STARFlex Technology (MIST) trial: a prospective, multicenter, double-blind, sham-controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of patent foramen ovale closure with STARFlex septal repair implant to resolve refractory migraine headache.

BACKGROUND: Patent foramen ovale (PFO) is prevalent in patients with migraine with aura. Observational studies show that PFO closure resulted in migraine cessation or improvement in approximately 80% of such patients. We investigated the effects of PFO closure for migraine in a randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients who suffered from migraine with aura, experienced frequent migraine attacks, had previously failed > or = 2 classes of prophylactic treatments, and had moderate or large right-to-left shunts consistent with the presence of a PFO were randomized to transcatheter PFO closure with the STARFlex implant or to a sham procedure. Patients were followed up for 6 months. The primary efficacy end point was cessation of migraine headache 91 to 180 days after the procedure. In total, 163 of 432 patients (38%) had right-to-left shunts consistent with a moderate or large PFO. One hundred forty-seven patients were randomized. No significant difference was observed in the primary end point of migraine headache cessation between implant and sham groups (3 of 74 versus 3 of 73, respectively; P=0.51). Secondary end points also were not achieved. On exploratory analysis, excluding 2 outliers, the implant group demonstrated a greater reduction in total migraine headache days (P=0.027). As expected, the implant arm experienced more procedural serious adverse events. All events were transient. CONCLUSIONS: This trial confirmed the high prevalence of right-to-left shunts in patients with migraine with aura. Although no significant effect was found for primary or secondary end points, the exploratory analysis supports further investigation. The robust design of this study has served as the model for larger trials that are currently underway in the United States and Europe.

Clinical profile of botulinum toxin A in patients with chronic headaches and cervical dystonia: a prospective, open-label, longitudinal study conducted in a naturalistic clinical practice setting.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Some evidence for the efficacy of botulinum toxin A as a preventive treatment for chronic primary headaches has been reported in randomized, controlled clinical studies. This study investigated the clinical profile of botulinum toxin A in a naturalistic clinical practice setting in a population of patients with cervical dystonia associated with chronic headache and a history of migraine. METHODS: This was a prospective, open-label, longitudinal study. Following a prospective run-in period, eligible patients were given three sets of botulinum toxin A injections at 8- to 12-week intervals over a 16- to 24-week period and were monitored for 3 months after the final injections. Efficacy was assessed in terms of headache-related disability (using the Migraine Disability Assessment [MIDAS] questionnaire), pain and emotional function (using the Short Pain Inventory [SPI]), quality of life (QOL, using the Short-Form-36 [SF-36] questionnaire) and patient-assessed headache frequency and severity, and medication use and its effectiveness. Safety was assessed as adverse events. The primary endpoint was the change in MIDAS score from baseline following treatment with botulinum toxin A. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients took part in the study and 17 (71%) completed the study. There were significant improvements in headache-related disability (MIDAS score), pain and emotional function (SPI), QOL (SF-36), headache frequency and medication use following treatment with botulinum toxin A (p < 0.05 for all endpoints). An efficacy response occurred within 8 weeks of treatment initiation and was maintained throughout the study duration. Botulinum toxin A was generally well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that botulinum toxin A is an effective and well tolerated preventive treatment for chronic headache in patients with cervical dystonia and a history of migraine. These results warrant further investigation in a large, randomized, controlled study.

Headache: a 'suitable case' for behavioural treatment in primary care?

Headache is a health problem with considerable impact at personal, social, and financial levels in terms of distress, disability, and cost. In the past, many studies have investigated the use of various behavioural treatment modalities for headache. Literature reviews consistently support the effectiveness of behavioural therapeutic approaches for the treatment of the most common primary headaches, namely migraine and tension-type headache. This article recommends that behavioural headache therapies should be developed, tested, and integrated into primary care practice, where most patients with headache are seen and treated. The large population seen in general practice, most of whom have uncomplicated primary headaches, could represent the ideal target for testing behavioural therapies.

How do patients referred to neurologists for headache differ from those managed in primary care?

BACKGROUND: Headache is the neurological symptom most frequently presented to GPs and referred to neurologists, but little is known about how referred patients differ from patients managed by GPs. AIM: To describe and compare headache patients managed in primary care with those referred to neurologists. DESIGN OF STUDY: Prospective study. SETTING: Eighteen general practices in south-east England. METHOD: This study examined 488 eligible patients consulting GPs with primary headache over 7 weeks and 81 patients referred to neurologists over 1 year. Headache disability was measured by the Migraine Disability Assessment Score, headache impact by the Headache Impact Test, emotional distress by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and illness perception was assessed using the Illness Perception Questionnaire. RESULTS: Participants were 303 patients who agreed to participate. Both groups reported severe disability and very severe impact on functioning. Referred patients consulted more frequently than those not referred in the 3 months before referral (P = 0.003). There was no significant difference between GP-managed and referred groups in mean headache disability, impact, anxiety, depression, or satisfaction with care. The referred group were more likely to link an increased number of symptoms to their headaches (P = 0.01), to have stronger emotional representations of their headaches (P = 0.006), to worry more (P = 0.001), and were made anxious by their headache symptoms (P = 0.044). CONCLUSION: Patients who consult for headache experience severe disability and impact, and up to a third report anxiety and/or depression. Referral is not related to clinical severity of headaches, but is associated with higher consultation frequency and patients' anxiety and concern about their headache symptoms.

Medication overuse headache in patients with primary headache disorders: epidemiology, management and pathogenesis.

Medication overuse headache (MOH) is a common medical condition that is associated with considerable long-term morbidity and disability. Patients experiencing MOH have primary headache disorders (migraine, tension-type headache [TTH] or the combination of migraine and TTH) that change to a pattern of daily or near-daily headaches over a period of years or decades following the overuse of symptomatic headache medications. Overused drugs include analgesics, ergot alkaloids, serotonin 5-HT(1B/1D) receptor agonists ('triptans') and medications containing barbiturates, codeine, caffeine, tranquillisers and mixed analgesics. Affected patients usually have a long history of primary headache, overuse of medications and MOH before they consult a physician for care. Patients with MOH are usually managed in specialist centres by withdrawal of the overused drugs and treatment of withdrawal symptoms (on an inpatient or outpatient basis), headache prophylaxis and limited use of symptomatic acute medications. Most patients respond to this therapy, although the prognosis is not always good and >or=50% may lapse over an initial 5-year follow-up period. The best practical strategy at present is to prevent the overuse of drugs in the first place by patient education and formal management approaches conducted in primary care to treat the primary headache before it changes to MOH. The quality of the clinical evidence on MOH is suboptimal and further biological and clinical research is urgently required to help facilitate the management of these patients more effectively in the future.

Part III: the convenience of, and patient preference for, zolmitriptan orally disintegrating tablet.

As part of an optimal strategy for the management of migraine, the individual needs and preferences of patients need to be considered when of patients need to be considered when prescribing treatments. Zolmitriptan has been available as a conventional oral tablet for more than seven years, and is established as a highly effective, well-tolerated compound for the acute treatment of migraine. A bioequivalent, orally disintegrating tablet (ODT) of zolmitriptan, which dissolves on the tongue without the need for additional fluid intake, has been developed. In a study designed to compare patient preference for zolmitriptan ODT and conventional oral sumatriptan tablets, > 60% of the 186 patients questioned had an overall preference for zolmitriptan ODT, with > 80% of patients reporting that this was the more convenient and less disruptive therapy to take. Approximately 90% of patients agreed that, unlike a conventional tablet, zolmitriptan ODT can be taken wherever and whenever a migraine occurs. When patient preference for zolmitriptan ODT and the ODT formulation of rizatriptan was compared in 171 migraineurs, 70% had an overall preference for zolmitriptan ODT to be superior to rizatriptan ODT with respect to taste and aftertaste, as well as packaging. In summary, not only is zolmitriptan ODT a convenient tablets, such as the sumatriptan oral tablet, but patients generally consider it to be a more attractive option for the acute treatment of migraine than the orally disintegrating version of rizatriptan.

Part II: clinical efficacy and tolerability of zolmitriptan orally disintegrating tablet in the acute treatment of migraine.

Controlled clinical trials and extensive clinical use of conventional oral tablets of zolmitriptan, a selective agonist of serotonin1B/1D receptors, have proven the compound to be fast-acting, highly effective, and well-tolerated in the acute treatment of migraine. An orally disintegrating tablet (ODT) of zolmitriptan that dissolves on the tongue without the need for fluid intake has been developed in order to provide an acceptable, convenient alternative for patients who prefer not to, or cannot, take conventional tablets. A fast onset of effective, sustained pain relief was predicted for zolmitriptan ODT on the basis of its bioequivalence with the conventional tablet, which has been confirmed in three randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of zolmitriptan ODT in the acute treatment of migraine. Compared with placebo, significantly higher proportions of patients treated with zolmitriptan ODT responded to treatment (reduction of moderate or severe headache to mild or no pain) as early as 30 minutes after dosing. Headache response was maintained at 24 hours in significantly higher proportions of patients receiving zolmitriptan ODT compared with placebo. Zolmitriptan ODT also resulted in significantly greater pain-free rates than placebo as early as 1 hour after dosing. Zolmitriptan ODT relieved patients of other migraine-associated symptoms, including nausea, photophobia and phonophobia, and enabled >50% of patients to resume normal daily activities 2 hours after dosing. Adverse events observed with zolmitriptan ODT were similar to those associated with the serotonin1B/1D agonists as a class, and were generally transient and of mild or moderate intensity.

Tolerability and consistency of effect of zolmitriptan nasal spray in a long-term migraine treatment trial.

OBJECTIVES: To primarily assess the tolerability of zolmitriptan (Zomig) nasal spray 5mg in the long-term treatment of migraine, as well as determine efficacy and consistency of effect over time (up to 1 year). METHODS: This randomised, double-blind-to-dose, parallel-group, multicentre study was designed as a two-phase, crossover trial with a total duration of 1 year. In the pre-crossover phase, 1,093 patients aged 18-65 years with an established diagnosis of migraine with or without aura received intranasal zolmitriptan 5, 2.5, 1 or 0.5mg for the treatment of mild, moderate or severe migraine attacks. When a headache persisted or recurred, a second dose of zolmitriptan nasal spray (or other approved escape medication) was permitted 2 hours post-administration but no later than 24 hours after the first dose. In the post-crossover phase, once a placebo-controlled, dose-finding study had established 5mg as the dose with the optimal clinical utility, all patients were crossed over under blinded conditions to receive this dose. As this was primarily a safety study, the primary endpoints for the study were the incidence and nature of all serious adverse events (at any time before or after administration) and nonserious adverse events (within 24 hours of administration), as well as the incidence of clinically significant abnormalities in either ECG or haematology and clinical chemistry parameters. Nose and throat examinations were performed before and after the study at 30 predetermined trial centres. Other endpoint measures included headache response rate, pain-free assessments, reduction in headache intensity, time to resumption of normal activities and consistency of headache response. Efficacy rates were measured in 90-day intervals up to a period of 360 days. RESULTS: Zolmitriptan nasal spray 5mg was well tolerated, with only 1.9% of patients withdrawing from the 12-month long-term trial because of adverse events. Adverse events occurred in 22.1% of attacks treated with zolmitriptan nasal spray 5mg, and the majority were of short duration and mild or moderate intensity. Serious adverse events occurred in 0.2% of attacks treated with zolmitriptan nasal spray 5mg. There was no evidence of increased incidence of adverse events with increasing duration of treatment. Nasopharyngeal adverse events were reported in 5.5% of attacks treated with zolmitriptan nasal spray 5mg. Again, events were generally transient and of mild intensity. For the 1,093 patients who treated 13,806 attacks during the pre-crossover phase, headache response rates at 2 hours over all attacks were 73.2%, 70.5%, 49.9% and 41.5% for zolmitriptan nasal spray 5, 2.5, 1 and 0.5mg, respectively. Pain-free rates at 2 hours over all attacks were 51.5%, 48.1%, 24.7% and 21.8%, respectively. For the 783 patients receiving the 5mg dose in either the pre- or post-crossover phases, the 2-hour headache response rates were 72.9%, 74.4%, 74.6% and 74.1% for the four 90-day periods between day 0 and day 360. Normal activities were resumed within 2 hours in 60.4% of attacks. Long-term usage of zolmitriptan nasal spray 5mg was also associated with a consistently effective response, with 57.8% of patients experiencing a 2-hour headache response in over 75% of attacks. The majority of patients (70.3%) rated their overall satisfaction with zolmitriptan nasal spray 5mg as good or excellent. CONCLUSION: Zolmitriptan nasal spray 5mg provides good tolerability and efficacy in long-term use in a clinical setting, with consistently high 2-hour headache and pain-free rates. This combination of benefits translates to high patient satisfaction with this formulation of zolmitriptan.

Speed of onset and efficacy of zolmitriptan nasal spray in the acute treatment of migraine: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging study versus zolmitriptan tablet.

OBJECTIVE: Zolmitriptan oral tablet is highly effective and well tolerated in the acute treatment of migraine with and without aura in adults. A nasal spray formulation has now been developed. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of fixed doses of zolmitriptan administered via a nasal spray with placebo and zolmitriptan oral tablet in the acute treatment of migraine. PATIENTS AND STUDY DESIGN: This was a randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicentre, dose-ranging study. 1547 patients aged 18-65 years with an established diagnosis of migraine with or without aura (as defined by International Headache Society criteria) who had at least a 1-year history of migraine and an age of onset <50 years were included. Patients were able to distinguish typical migraine from nonmigraine headaches and had experienced an average of one to six migraine headaches per month during the 2 months preceding the study. Patients were randomised to zolmitriptan (Zomig) The use of tradenames is for product identification purposes only and does not imply endorsement.) nasal spray (5.0, 2.5, 1.0 or 0.5 mg), zolmitriptan oral tablet (2.5mg) or placebo for the treatment of three moderate or severe migraine attacks. The primary outcome measure was headache response at 2 hours following treatment, defined as reduced intensity of migraine pain (using a scale of none, mild, moderate or severe) from severe or moderate at baseline to mild or no pain at 2 hours after treatment. Secondary outcome measures included early headache response at 15, 30 and 45 minutes and headache response at 1 and 4 hours postdose, as well as pain-free rates at 15, 30 and 45 minutes and 1, 2 and 4 hours postdose. Laboratory assessments, vital signs, 12-lead ECGs and nose and throat examinations were performed at screening and follow-up visits. Adverse events were recorded throughout the study using Coding Symbols for Thesaurus of Adverse Reaction Terms (COSTART) terminology. RESULTS: Each dose of zolmitriptan nasal spray produced a greater 2-hour headache response rate than placebo (70.3%, 58.6%, 54.8% and 41.5% for zolmitriptan nasal spray 5.0, 2.5, 1.0 and 0.5mg, compared with 30.6% for placebo [all p < 0.001 vs placebo]). The 2-hour headache response rate for zolmitriptan nasal spray 5.0mg was significantly higher than that of the zolmitriptan 2.5mg oral tablet (61.3%; p < 0.05), while comparisons of nasal spray 0.5, 1.0 and 2.5mg with zolmitriptan 2.5mg oral tablet were not statistically significant. The nasal spray 5.0 and 2.5mg showed a rapid onset of action, with a significant difference in headache response compared with placebo from 15 minutes through 4 hours after administration and a significant difference between the nasal spray 5.0mg and 2.5mg oral tablet from 15 minutes through to 2 hours (the other nasal spray doses were not statistically significant compared with 2.5mg oral tablet). Zolmitriptan nasal spray resulted in pain-free rates that were dose dependent. While all doses from 1.0 mg upwards produced significant pain-free outcomes from 30 minutes versus placebo, only the 5.0mg dose produced pain-free rates significantly superior to both placebo and the 2.5mg oral tablet. Zolmitriptan nasal spray was well tolerated, with the most common adverse events being unusual taste and paresthesia. The majority of adverse events were of short duration and mild or moderate intensity. Only ten patients were withdrawn from the trial because of adverse events. Serious adverse events were reported by nine patients after taking study medication, but none was considered to be causally related to study medication. Zolmitriptan was not associated with any clinically significant changes in laboratory test values or vital signs. CONCLUSION: All doses of zolmitriptan nasal spray produced significant 2-hour headache response rates compared with placebo. The 5.0 and 2.5mg doses were also significantly more effective than placebo for the majority of secondary efficacy measures. Zolmitriptan nasal spray 5.0mg provided a headache response statistically superior to both placebo and the 2.5mg tablet as early as 15 minutes after administration, while demonstrating pain-free outcomes significantly superior to placebo and the 2.5mg tablet as early as 30 minutes after administration. All doses of zolmitriptan nasal spray were well tolerated, resulting in an optimal therapeutic index and clinical recommendation for the 5.0mg dose.

Review of zolmitriptan and its clinical applications in migraine.

Preclinical studies have shown that zolmitriptan is a selective serotonin 5-HT(1B/1D) receptor agonist (triptan). Randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind trials in patients with migraine have shown that zolmitriptan has good efficacy measured using 2 h response and pain-free rates. Migraine-associated symptoms, including nausea, photophobia and phonophobia, are also improved with zolmitriptan. Oral zolmitriptan (2.5 and 5 mg) has an onset of action within 45 min and efficacy is sustained in most patients who respond at 2 h. The orally-disintegrating zolmitriptan tablet has the advantage that it may be taken immediately, without the need for additional fluids, any time a migraine headache occurs. Patients may benefit in terms of improved efficacy from the convenience of the disintegrating tablet, since there is evidence that taking triptan therapy as early as possible in an attack is advantageous. For similar reasons, as well as improved efficacy, a nasal spray formulation is in development. Zolmitriptan is effective in the treatment of migraine associated with menses and migraine with aura. There is no tachyphylaxis following repeated doses for multiple attacks of migraine over a prolonged period of time. Compared to placebo, the incidence of persistent migraine headache is reduced by zolmitriptan and recurrent migraine headache occurs less frequently. Zolmitriptan has also shown efficacy in the treatment of persistent and/or recurrent migraine headache. Comparative clinical studies have shown overall that zolmitriptan has similar or superior efficacy to sumatriptan in the treatment of migraine. Specifically, zolmitriptan 2.5 mg was significantly more effective than sumatriptan 25 or 50 mg according to a number of end points, including headache response at 2 h. Oral zolmitriptan is also effective in the acute treatment of cluster headache. Zolmitriptan is generally well tolerated, with most adverse events being mild-to-moderate, transient and resolving without intervention or the need for treatment withdrawal. The consistent efficacy in treating all types of migraine and the choice of available formulations make zolmitriptan acceptable to patients and a suitable first-line therapy for the treatment of migraine.

Casebook: headache.

Headache alone rarely indicates a sinister underlying cause. However, if the red flags are flying -- that is, if the patient is over 30 years old when the first headache develops, has additional symptoms or signs or has a very acute onset, particularly involving vomiting, then suspicion should be raised (see table 4). Although migraine has a high impact on the sufferer and affects a large proportion of the population on a monthly basis, the problem of acute muscle contraction headache is far greater. Other forms of headache are actually uncommon in comparison to these two. However, chronic daily headache is the most common condition seen by the medical professional because of its impact on the patient's quality of life. The key to the management of this condition is the assessment of analgesic dependence including NSAIDs, and particularly the codeine-containing agents. These should be avoided while long-term aproached such as exercise and certain prophylactic agents are introduced. It is true to say that if a careful initial assessment is made leading to a correct diagnosis, then the chance of appropriate management is enormously increased. Patients undergoing the correct management should generally see a massive improvement in their quality of life. Headache can, therefore, be a very satisfying condition for the clinician to treat.

Peripheral occipital nerve stimulation to treat chronic refractory migraine.

Peripheral nerve stimulation of the occipital nerve has a favourable efficacy to safety profile for chronic migraine, which is notoriously difficult to treat. This article covers the rationale, surgical procedure and clinical data for this treatment option.

Development and validation of a pharmacy migraine questionnaire to assess suitability for treatment with a triptan.

A questionnaire (Migraine Questionnaire; MQ) was developed to help pharmacists identify consumers with migraine suitable for non-prescription treatment with a triptan. Adults, who knew or thought that they had migraine, participated in three, sequential, community-based studies to validate the MQ. Overall, 1,353 subjects completed independent assessments with a pharmacist and a clinician (reference standard). The accuracy of the pharmacist assessment of suitability for a triptan was compared with the clinician assessment. Clinicians using their standard practice determined that triptan therapy was suitable in 76.8% of cases compared with 48.8% for pharmacists using the MQ. The lack of concordance between pharmacists and clinicians in the false-positive cases (n = 113 of 660 subjects considered suitable for triptan by the pharmacists) usually related to headache diagnosis (57.5%), not safety aspects. The MQ is an effective tool for pharmacists to guide appropriate recommendation of a non-prescription triptan for migraine.

Imaging patients with suspected brain tumour: guidance for primary care.

The number of referrals by primary care practitioners to secondary care neurology services, particularly for headache, may be difficult to justify. Access to imaging by primary care practitioners could avoid referral without compromising patient outcomes, but the decision to refer is based on a number of complex factors. Due to the paucity of rigorous evidence in this area, available data are combined with expert opinion to offer support for GPs. The study suggests management for three levels of risk of tumour: red flags>1%; orange flags 0.1-1%; and yellow flags<0.1% but above the background population rate of 0.01%. Clinical presentations are stratified into these three groups. Important secondary causes of headache where imaging is normal should not be overlooked, and normal investigation does not eliminate the need for follow-up or appropriate management of headache.

Migraine and chronic daily headache management: implications for primary care practitioners.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this paper is to outline the classifications of migraine and chronic daily headaches (i.e. headaches occurring at more than 15 days per month) and briefly describe their epidemiology and management. After outlining the patients' management behaviours, this review paper discuss the implications for primary care practitioners, including general practitioners and nurses. Finally the paper sets out current resources for headache education for healthcare practitioners. BACKGROUND: There is a scarcity of recent literature about migraine and chronic daily headache in primary care and of the evidence base for best practice. Patients with migraine and headache may see a variety of healthcare professionals and may not always be accessing the best sources of help. METHODS: Various databases were searched, such as CINAHL, Cochrane, Medline, MedlinePubmed and the BMJ. In addition, manual searches were conducted by following on cited references from papers read. RESULTS: The results of the literature reviews were critically read and evaluated by the team and the results are discussed in the critical review presented in this paper. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The paper proposes multidisciplinary working in relation to migraine and headache management in primary healthcare, using an evidence-based approach that stresses the importance of making the correct diagnosis, patient focused management and appropriate referrals to appropriate agencies to maximize benefits for patients.