Association between clinician specialty and prescription of preventive medication for young adults with migraine: A retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare the prescribing patterns of preventive medications between pediatric and adult neurologists for young adults with migraine. BACKGROUND: Although preventive medications are effective for adults with migraine, studies in children have failed to demonstrate similar efficacy. As a result, lifestyle modifications and non-pharmacological interventions are often emphasized in children. It is not known whether young adults are prescribed preventive medications at different rates according to whether they are cared for by an adult or pediatric neurologist. METHODS: We performed a multicenter retrospective cohort analysis of patients with migraine aged 18-25 years who were seen by a pediatric or adult neurologist at Mass General Brigham Hospital between 2017 and 2021. The primary outcome was whether the patient received a prescription for any preventive medication during the study period. RESULTS: Among the 767 included patients, 290 (37.8%) were seen by a pediatric neurologist. Preventive medications were prescribed for 131/290 (45.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 39.5%, 51.0%) patients seen by a pediatric neurologist and 206/477 (43.2%; 95% CI: 39.0%, 47.7%) patients seen by an adult neurologist (p = 0.591). In the mixed effects logistic regression model, clinician specialty was not associated with preventive medication use (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.20, 95% CI: 0.62, 2.31). Female sex (AOR 1.69, 95% CI: 1.07, 2.66) and number of visits during the study period (AOR 1.64, 95% CI: 1.49, 1.80) were associated with receiving preventive medication. CONCLUSION: Approximately two fifths of young adults with migraine were prescribed preventive medications, and this proportion did not differ according to clinician specialty. Although these findings suggest that pediatric and adult neurologists provide comparable care, both specialties may be underusing preventive medications in this patient population.

Improving social justice in observational studies: protocol for the development of a global and Indigenous STROBE-equity reporting guideline.

BACKGROUND: Addressing persistent and pervasive health inequities is a global moral imperative, which has been highlighted and magnified by the societal and health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Observational studies can aid our understanding of the impact of health and structural oppression based on the intersection of gender, race, ethnicity, age and other factors, as they frequently collect this data. However, the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guideline, does not provide guidance related to reporting of health equity. The goal of this project is to develop a STROBE-Equity reporting guideline extension. METHODS: We assembled a diverse team across multiple domains, including gender, age, ethnicity, Indigenous background, disciplines, geographies, lived experience of health inequity and decision-making organizations. Using an inclusive, integrated knowledge translation approach, we will implement a five-phase plan which will include: (1) assessing the reporting of health equity in published observational studies, (2) seeking wide international feedback on items to improve reporting of health equity, (3) establishing consensus amongst knowledge users and researchers, (4) evaluating in partnership with Indigenous contributors the relevance to Indigenous peoples who have globally experienced the oppressive legacy of colonization, and (5) widely disseminating and seeking endorsement from relevant knowledge users. We will seek input from external collaborators using social media, mailing lists and other communication channels. DISCUSSION: Achieving global imperatives such as the Sustainable Development Goals (e.g., SDG 10 Reduced inequalities, SDG 3 Good health and wellbeing) requires advancing health equity in research. The implementation of the STROBE-Equity guidelines will enable a better awareness and understanding of health inequities through better reporting. We will broadly disseminate the reporting guideline with tools to enable adoption and use by journal editors, authors, and funding agencies, using diverse strategies tailored to specific audiences.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations.

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 Explanation and Elaboration: A Report of the ISPOR CHEERS II Good Practices Task Force.

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces the previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, and the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as healthcare, public health, education, and social care). This Explanation and Elaboration Report presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist with recommendations and explanation and examples for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer-reviewed journals and the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. Nevertheless, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, given that there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) Statement: Updated Reporting Guidance for Health Economic Evaluations.

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Addressing inequities in headache care by embedding services in a community health center in Boston, MA.

There is a critical need to diagnose and treat headache disorders in primary care settings. This is especially true for those who face systemic barriers to healthcare access due to racism or poverty. In order to target those at higher risk of disability associated with neurologic disease in our healthcare system, we embedded a specialized headache and neurology clinic within the Brigham and Women's Hospital Southern Jamaica Plain Community Health Center in Boston, MA. The goal was to create a sustainable, integrated clinic consistent with the CHC's racial justice mission, with an emphasis on equitable care, awareness of structural barriers to care, improved communication with primary care and inclusion of trainees as important members of a healthcare team. In its' first year, the clinic had over 400 patient visits, with a near-perfect rate of completion of consults. In addition to improved access to tertiary care headache services, successes have included improving continuity of care, cultivating a model of shared care with primary care practitioners and stimulating interest in headache medicine among staff and trainees. Challenges have included the use of staff time to complete prior authorizations, and the need to find or develop Spanish-language and culturally appropriate patient educational resources. By providing care within the patient's medical home, the headache specialist gains a deeper appreciation of a patient's social determinants of health and can readily access resources to navigate barriers. The personal and professional fulfillment that headache specialists may experience while doing this important work could help protect against burnout. Sustainability depends on ensuring equitable provider reimbursement; departmental and institutional support is essential. We believe this clinic can serve as a model for specialists throughout the United States who wish to improve the delivery of care to patient populations who face access barriers.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations.

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations.

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations.

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc.). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer-reviewed journals, as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

[The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviewsDeclaración PRISMA 2020: una guía actualizada para la publicación de revisiones sistemáticas]. / A declaração PRISMA 2020: diretriz atualizada para relatar revisões sistemáticas.

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.

La declaración PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses), publicada en 2009, se diseñó para ayudar a los autores de revisiones sistemáticas a documentar de manera transparente el porqué de la revisión, qué hicieron los autores y qué encontraron. Durante la última década, ha habido muchos avances en la metodología y terminología de las revisiones sistemáticas, lo que ha requerido una actualización de esta guía. La declaración PRISMA 2020 sustituye a la declaración de 2009 e incluye una nueva guía de presentación de las publicaciones que refleja los avances en los métodos para identificar, seleccionar, evaluar y sintetizar estudios. La estructura y la presentación de los ítems ha sido modificada para facilitar su implementación. En este artículo, presentamos la lista de verificación PRISMA 2020 con 27 ítems, y una lista de verificación ampliada que detalla las recomendaciones en la publicación de cada ítem, la lista de verificación del resumen estructurado PRISMA 2020 y el diagrama de flujo revisado para revisiones sistemáticas.

The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews.

Matthew Page and co-authors describe PRISMA 2020, an updated reporting guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Identification of work accommodations and interventions associated with work productivity in adults with migraine: A scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: To identify factors associated with work productivity in adults with migraine, and accommodations or interventions to improve productivity or the workplace environment for them. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review by searching MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Heath Literature, and Web of Science from their inception to 14 October 2019 for studies of any design that assessed workplace productivity in adults with migraine. RESULTS: We included 26 articles describing 24 studies after screening 4139 records. Five prospective cohort studies showed that education on managing migraine in the workplace was associated with an increase in productivity of 29-36%. Two studies showed that migraine education and management in the workplace were associated with increased productivity (absenteeism decreased by 50% in one study). One prospective cohort study showed that occupational health referrals were associated with more than 50% reduction in absenteeism. Autonomy, social support, and job satisfaction were positively associated with productivity, while quantitative demands, emotional demands, job instability, and non-conducive work environment triggers are negatively associated with productivity in workers with migraine. CONCLUSION: Despite migraine being the second leading cause of disability worldwide, there is a paucity of strong data on migraine-related work factors associated with productivity.Registration: None (scoping review).

The prevalence and impact of migraine and severe headache in the United States: Updated age, sex, and socioeconomic-specific estimates from government health surveys.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Accurate, up-to-date estimates of the burden of migraine and severe headache are important for evidence-based decision-making about workforce needs and the distribution of health resources. We used data from US government health surveys to report the prevalence, trends, and impact of this condition by age, sex, and poverty status. METHODS: We identified the most recent, publicly available summary statistics from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, and the National Health Interview Survey. We extracted and compiled relevant information from each study, with an emphasis on sex, age, and economic-related statistics. RESULTS: The age-adjusted prevalence of migraine and severe headache in the United States has remained stable over many years. In 2018, the age-adjusted prevalence was 15.9% across all adults. The sex ratio also remains stable, with 21% of women and 10.7% of men affected. Migraine continues to be an important public health problem, accounting for roughly 4 million emergency department (ED) visits in 2016, when headache was the fifth most common reason for an ED visit overall and the third most common reason for ED visits in females 15-64. Migraine also accounted for over 4.3 million office visits. Many adults with migraine or severe headaches are disadvantaged. In 2018, for example, roughly 40% of US adults with migraine were unemployed, and a similar proportion were classified as poor or "near poor." Roughly one in five had no health insurance and about a third had a high school education or less. CONCLUSIONS: Migraine and severe headaches are a serious public health issue in the United States, with the highest impact in women of childbearing age and those of lower socioeconomic status. Socioeconomic disadvantages also are highly prevalent among those with headaches. The economic consequences of the current coronavirus pandemic are likely to exacerbate all of these inequities. Increased attention to this high impact chronic pain condition, and improved funding for treatment provision and research, are warranted to reduce the future burden of disease.

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Using Mendelian Randomization: The STROBE-MR Statement.

Importance: Mendelian randomization (MR) studies use genetic variation associated with modifiable exposures to assess their possible causal relationship with outcomes and aim to reduce potential bias from confounding and reverse causation. Objective: To develop the STROBE-MR Statement as a stand-alone extension to the STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) guideline for the reporting of MR studies. Design, Setting, and Participants: The development of the STROBE-MR Statement followed the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) framework guidance and used the STROBE Statement as a starting point to draft a checklist tailored to MR studies. The project was initiated in 2018 by reviewing the literature on the reporting of instrumental variable and MR studies. A group of 17 experts, including MR methodologists, MR study design users, developers of previous reporting guidelines, and journal editors, participated in a workshop in May 2019 to define the scope of the Statement and draft the checklist. The draft checklist was published as a preprint in July 2019 and discussed on the preprint platform, in social media, and at the 4th Mendelian Randomization Conference. The checklist was then revised based on comments, further refined through 2020, and finalized in July 2021. Findings: The STROBE-MR checklist is organized into 6 sections (Title and Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, and Other Information) and includes 20 main items and 30 subitems. It covers both 1-sample and 2-sample MR studies that assess 1 or multiple exposures and outcomes, and addresses MR studies that follow a genome-wide association study and are reported in the same article. The checklist asks authors to justify why MR is a helpful method to address the study question and state prespecified causal hypotheses. The measurement, quality, and selection of genetic variants must be described and attempts to assess validity of MR-specific assumptions should be well reported. An item on data sharing includes reporting when the data and statistical code required to replicate the analyses can be accessed. Conclusions and Relevance: STROBE-MR provides guidelines for reporting MR studies. Improved reporting of these studies could facilitate their evaluation by editors, peer reviewers, researchers, clinicians, and other readers, and enhance the interpretation of their results.

Real-world effectiveness and tolerability of erenumab: A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to systematically assess the effectiveness and tolerability of erenumab in a clinical setting, specifically a tertiary headache center. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study at the John Graham Headache Center of Brigham and Women's Hospital. All patients who received erenumab from a headache specialist at the Center from 17 May 2018 to 31 January 2019 were included. Patients were contacted and underwent a structured clinical interview including information about erenumab use, perceived benefit, adverse events (AEs), and a global assessment of benefit versus drawbacks. Chart review was performed for patients who could not be contacted. RESULTS: Four hundred and forty-four patients were initially identified and 418 were eligible. Two hundred and ninety-five participants completed the structured clinical interview portion of the study (response rate 70.6%). Seventy-four patient charts were additionally reviewed. Two hundred and forty-one participants had used erenumab. One hundred and sixty nine (70%) of participants experienced at least one adverse event, with constipation (43%), injection site reaction (24%), fatigue (15%), worsening headache (12%), and dizziness (11%) the five most commonly reported AEs. One hundred and sixty-eight participants (69.7%) felt that the benefits of erenumab outweighed any drawbacks. One hundred and fifty-one participants (62.7%) planned to continue using erenumab. Cost of treatment was cited by 12% of participants as a reason for either not starting or for stopping erenumab. Of patients who had an increase in dose due to lack of or partial efficacy, 46.5% felt that the dose increase was helpful. We identified one case of unintended pregnancy in our study population. CONCLUSIONS: This large "real-world" study validates the findings of benefit of erenumab observed in clinical trials. Although adverse events were far more common in this population than in clinical trials, the planned continuation rate was relatively high. The substantial discrepancy between adverse events seen in clinical practice compared with clinical trials suggests systematic differences between clinical trial participants and patients who receive the treatment in clinical practice, or may indicate suboptimal ascertainment of adverse events in the trials. Clinicians should continue to be vigilant for adverse events in clinical practice.

Ten Eleven Things Not to Say to Healthcare Professionals During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic.

On March 11, 2020, the infection caused by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) virus was declared a pandemic. Throughout this pandemic, healthcare professionals (HCPs) have experienced difficulties stemming from poor communications, resource scarcity, lack of transparency, disbelief, and threats to the safety of their loved ones, their patients, and themselves. As part of these hardships, negative statements have been heard repeatedly. This paper describes 11 scenarios of unhelpful and dysfunctional messages heard by the authors and their colleagues during the COVID-19 pandemic, reported to us by a combination of peers, administrative leadership, and the public. We explain why not to use such messaging, and we suggest more helpful and compassionate expressions based upon recommendations published by scientific organizations and well-established psychological principles. The first 10 scenarios discussed include (1) lack of understanding regarding the extent of the pandemic; (2) shaming over not seeing patients in person; (3) lack of clear and consistent communication from leadership on pandemic-related practice changes; (4) opinions that personal protective equipment (PPE) use by HCPs causes fear or is unnecessary; (5) forcing in-person care without appropriate PPE; (6) the risk of exposure to asymptomatic individuals as it relates to opening clinics; (7) media gag orders; (8) pay and benefit reductions; (9) spreading of misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic; and (10) workload expectations. The 11th scenario addresses HCPs' psychological and physical reactions to this challenging and prolonged stressful situation. We close by discussing the need for support and compassion at this difficult and unpredictable time and by offering suggestions to foster resilience and feelings of self-efficacy among HCPs.

Pharmacologic Prevention of Migraine: A Narrative Review of the State of the Art in 2018.

This paper describes current non-antibody pharmacologic approaches to the prevention of migraine in adults. Preventive therapy should be considered for patients with migraine who routinely have more than 6 headache days per month or in other special circumstances. Choices for preventive therapy are based on patient preferences about side effects and evidence of efficacy. The evidence level and commonly used doses for selected categories of migraine preventive medication are reviewed, including antiepileptic drugs, antihypertensive drugs, and antidepressants. Propranolol, timolol, topiramate, and divalproex sodium are approved for migraine prevention by the US FDA. OnabotulinumtoxinA is approved for prevention of chronic migraine. Several off-label drugs, especially lisinopril, candesartan, and amitriptyline also have good evidence of benefit. The spectrum of response to preventive therapy varies; in general, complete cessation of headaches is uncommon, although there are "super-responders" to every therapy, as illustrated by patient reports of dramatic responses to treatment. Preventive treatment should be started at a low dose and doses increased slowly until therapeutic benefit is achieved or side effects preclude continued use.

The Prevalence and Impact of Migraine and Severe Headache in the United States: Figures and Trends From Government Health Studies.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In this targeted systematic review, we aimed to identify up-to-date prevalence estimates of migraine and severe headache in adults from population-based US government surveys. Our goal was to assess the stability of prevalence estimates over time, and to identify additional information pertinent to the burden and treatment of migraine and other severe headache conditions. METHODS: We searched for the most current publicly available summary statistics from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS), and the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS). We extracted and summarized data from each study over time and as a function of demographic variables. RESULTS: The prevalence and burden of self-reported migraine and severe headache in the US adult population is high, affecting roughly 1 out of every 6 American and 1 in 5 women over a 3-month period (15.3% overall [95% CI 14.75-15.85], 9.7% of males [95% CI 9.05-10.35] and 20.7% of females [95% CI 19.84-21.56]). The prevalence has been remarkably stable over a period of 19 years. The prevalence of migraine or severe headache in 2015 was highest in American Indian or Alaska Natives (18.4%) compared with whites, blacks, or Hispanics, with the lowest prevalence in Asians (11.3%). There is a higher burden of migraine in those aged 18-44 (17.9%), people who are unemployed (21.4%), those with family income less than $35,000 per year (19.9%), and the elderly and disabled (16.4%). Headache is consistently the fourth or fifth most common reason for visits to the emergency department, accounting for roughly 3% of all emergency department visits annually. In reproductive aged women, headache is the third leading cause of emergency department visits. CONCLUSIONS: Severe headache and migraine remain important public health problems that are more common and burdensome for women, particularly women of childbearing age, and other historically disadvantaged segments of the population. These inequities could be exacerbated if new high-cost treatments are inaccessible to those who need them most.