Pain acceptance as a change mechanism for mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for migraine.

Migraine is one of the leading causes of disability worldwide. Third wave therapies, such as Mindfulness Based Cognitive Therapy for Migraine (MBCT-M), have proven efficacious in reducing headache-related disability. However, research is needed to better understand the change mechanisms involved in these third-wave therapies. Acceptance is a fundamental component of third wave therapies, and more research is warranted on the role of pain acceptance in MBCT-M. It is also valuable to understand the independent roles of the two components of pain acceptance-pain willingness (PW) and activity engagement (AE). The current study is a secondary analysis of a randomized control trial of MBCT-M. Sixty participants were included in the study (MBCT = 31; WL/TAU = 29). Baseline correlations between overall pain acceptance, PW, AE, and headache-related disability were run. Mixed models assessed change from baseline to one-month post-treatment and treatment-by-time interaction for overall pain acceptance, PW, and AE. Mixed models also assessed maintenance of changes at 6-month follow-up in the MBCT-M group. Longitudinal mediation models assessed whether change in pain acceptance, PW, and AE mediated the relationship between treatment and change in headache-related disability. Pain acceptance, PW, and AE were all negatively correlated with headache-related disability at baseline. Pain acceptance, PW, and AE all significantly increased over time in both the waitlist/ treatment-as-usual group (WL/TAU) and the MBCT-M group. Only AE increased more in the MBCT group than the WL/TAU group. Change in pain acceptance, PW, and AE all significantly mediated the relationship between MBCT and change in headache-related disability. The study supports the importance of pain acceptance, specifically the activity engagement component, in MBCT-M.

Changes in cognitive appraisal in a randomized controlled trial of mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for patients with migraine.

OBJECTIVE: This study is a secondary analysis evaluating changes in cognitive fusion and pain catastrophizing over 8 weeks of mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for migraine (MBCT-M) intervention versus waitlist/treatment as usual. BACKGROUND: Migraine is a common disabling neurological condition. MBCT-M combines elements of cognitive behavioral therapy with mindfulness-based approaches and has demonstrated efficacy in reducing migraine-related disability. METHODS: A total of 60 adults with migraine completed a 30-day run-in before randomization into a parallel design of either eight weekly individual MBCT-M sessions (n = 31) or waitlist/treatment as usual (n = 29): participants were followed for 1 month after. Participants completed the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) and the Cognitive Fusion Questionnaire (CFQ) at Months 0, 1, 2, and 4. RESULTS: The PCS scores decreased more in the MBCT-M group (mean [SD] at baseline = 22.5 [9.6]; at Month 4 = 15.1 [8.8]) than in the waitlist/treatment as usual group (mean [SD] at baseline = 24.9 [9.0]; at Month 4 = 22.5 [10.4]) from Month 0 to 4 (ß = -7.24, p = 0.001, 95% confidence interval [CI] -11.39 to -3.09). The CFQ (mean [SD] baseline = 27.6 [8.0]; at Month 4 = 25.0 [8.0]) did not change significantly from Month 0 to 4 (ß = -1.2, p = 0.482, 95% CI -4.5 to 2.1). Parallel mediation analyses indicated that decreases in the PCS and CFQ together (ß = -6.1, SE = 2.5, 95% CI -11.6 to -1.8), and the PCS alone (ß = -4.8, SE = 2.04, 95% CI -9.1 to -1.1), mediated changes in headache disability in the MBCT-M treatment completer group (n = 19). CONCLUSION: In this study, pain catastrophizing showed strong promise as a potential mechanism of MBCT-M. Future research should continue to explore cognitive appraisal changes in mindfulness-based interventions.

Substance Use and Adherence to Antiretroviral Therapy among People Living with HIV in the United States.

People with HIV (PWH) report substance use at higher rates than HIV-uninfected individuals. The potential negative impact of single and polysubstance use on HIV treatment among diverse samples of PWH is underexplored. PWH were recruited from the Center for Positive Living at the Montefiore Medical Center (Bronx, NY, USA) from May 2017-April 2018 and completed a cross-sectional survey with measures of substance use, antiretroviral therapy (ART) use, and ART adherence. The overall sample included 237 PWH (54.1% Black, 42.2% female, median age 53 years). Approximately half of the sample reported any current substance use with 23.1% reporting single substance use and 21.4% reporting polysubstance use. Polysubstance use was more prevalent among those with current cigarette smoking relative to those with no current smoking and among females relative to males. Alcohol and cannabis were the most commonly reported polysubstance combination; however, a sizeable proportion of PWH reported other two, three, and four-substance groupings. Single and polysubstance use were associated with lower ART adherence. A thorough understanding of substance use patterns and related adherence challenges may aid with targeted public health interventions to improve HIV care cascade goals, including the integration of substance use prevention into HIV treatment and care settings.

Essential components of care in a multidisciplinary headache center: Perspectives from headache neurology specialists.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Comprehensive headache care involves numerous specialties and components that have not been well documented or standardized. This study aimed to elicit best practices and characterize important elements of care to be provided in multidisciplinary headache centers. METHODS: Qualitative, semi-structured telephone interviews with a purposive sample of headache neurology specialists from across the US, using open-ended questions. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded. Coded data were further analyzed using immersion/crystallization techniques for final interpretation. RESULTS: Mean years providing headache care was 17.7 (SD = 10.6). Twelve of the 13 participants held United Council for Neurologic Subspecialties headache certification. Six described their practice site as providing multidisciplinary headache care. Participants explained most of their patients had seen multiple doctors over many years, and had tried numerous unsuccessful treatments. They noted patients with chronic headache frequently present with comorbidities and become stigmatized. All participants asserted successful care depends on taking time to talk with and listen to patients, gain understanding, and earn trust. All participants believed multidisciplinary care is essential within a comprehensive headache center, along with staffing enough headache specialists, implementing detailed headache intake and follow-up protocols, and providing the newest medications, neuromodulation devices, botulinum toxin injections, monoclonal antibodies, nerve blocks and infusions, and treatment from a health psychologist. Other essential services for a headache center are other behavioral health practitioners providing cognitive behavioral therapy, mindfulness, biofeedback and pain management; and autonomic neurology, neuropsychology, vestibular audiology, sleep medicine, physical therapy, occupational therapy, exercise physiology, speech therapy, nutrition, complementary integrative health modalities, and highly trained support staff. CONCLUSION: While headache neurology specialists form the backbone of headache care, experts interviewed for this study maintained their specialty is just one of many types of care needed to adequately treat patients with chronic headache, and this is best provided in a comprehensive, multidisciplinary center.

Response to Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy Differs Between Chronic and Episodic Migraine.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate whether the benefits of Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy for Migraine (MBCT-M) on headache disability differs among people with episodic and chronic migraine (CM). METHODS: This is a planned secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial. After a 30-day baseline, participants were stratified by episodic (6-14 d/mo) and CM (15-30 d/mo) and randomized to 8 weekly individual sessions of MBCT-M or wait list/treatment as usual (WL/TAU). Primary outcomes (Headache Disability Inventory; Severe Migraine Disability Assessment Scale [scores ≥ 21]) were assessed at months 0, 1, 2, and 4. Mixed models for repeated measures tested moderation with fixed effects of treatment, time, CM, and all interactions. Planned subgroup analyses evaluated treatment*time in episodic and CM. RESULTS: Of 60 participants (MBCT-M N = 31, WL/TAU N = 29), 52% had CM. CM moderated the effect of MBCT-M on Severe Migraine Disability Assessment Scale, F(3, 205) = 3.68, p = 0.013; MBCT-M vs WL/TAU reduced the proportion of people reporting severe disability to a greater extent among people with episodic migraine (-40.0% vs -14.3%) than CM (-16.4% vs +8.7%). Subgroup analysis revealed MBCT-M (vs WL/TAU) significantly reduced Headache Disability Inventory for episodic (p = 0.011) but not CM (p = 0.268). CONCLUSIONS: MBCT-M is a promising treatment for reducing headache-related disability, with greater benefits in episodic than CM. TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02443519. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class III evidence that MBCT-M reduces headache disability to a greater extent in people with episodic than CM.

Mindfulness in migraine: A narrative review.

Introduction: Migraine is the second leading cause of disability worldwide, yet many patients are unable to tolerate, benefit from, or afford pharmacological treatment options. Non-pharmacological migraine therapies exist, especially to reduce opioid use, which represents a significant unmet need. Mindfulness-based interventions (MBI) have potential as a non-pharmacological treatment for migraine, primarily through the development of flexible attentional capacity across sensory, cognitive, and emotional experiences.Areas covered: The authors review efficacy and potential mechanisms of MBIs for migraine, including mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) and mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT).Expert opinion: While most mindfulness research studies for migraine to date have been pilot trials, which are small and/or lacked rigor, initial evidence suggests there may be improvements in overall headache-related disability and psychological well-being. Many research questions remain to help target the treatment to patients most likely to benefit, including the ideal dosage, duration, delivery method, responder characteristics, and potential mechanisms and biomarkers. A realistic understanding of these factors is important for patients, providers, and the media. Mindfulness will not 'cure' migraine; however, mindfulness may be an important tool as part of a comprehensive treatment approach to help patients 'mindfully' engage in valued life activities.

Does Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy for Migraine Reduce Migraine-Related Disability in People with Episodic and Chronic Migraine? A Phase 2b Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The current Phase 2b study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for migraine (MBCT-M) to reduce migraine-related disability in people with migraine. BACKGROUND: Mindfulness-based interventions represent a promising avenue to investigate effects in people with migraine. MBCT teaches mindfulness meditation and cognitive-behavioral skills and directly applies these skills to address disease-related cognitions. METHODS: Participants with migraine (6-30 headache days/month) were recruited from neurology office referrals and local and online advertisements in the broader New York City area. During the 30-day baseline period, all participants completed a daily headache diary. Participants who met inclusion and exclusion criteria were randomized in a parallel design, stratified by chronic migraine status, to receive either 8 weekly individual MBCT-M sessions or 8 weeks of waitlist/treatment as usual (WL/TAU). All participants completed surveys including primary outcome evaluations at Months 0, 1, 2, and 4. All participants completed a headache diary during the 30-day posttreatment evaluation period. Primary outcomes were the change from Month 0 to Month 4 in the headache disability inventory (HDI) and the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) (total score ≥ 21 indicating severe disability); secondary outcomes (headache days/30 days, average headache attack pain intensity, and attack-level migraine-related disability [Migraine Disability Index (MIDI)]) were derived from the daily headache diary. RESULTS: Sixty participants were randomized to receive MBCT-M (n = 31) or WL/TAU (n = 29). Participants (M age = 40.1, SD = 11.7) were predominantly White (n = 49/60; 81.7%) and Non-Hispanic (N = 50/60; 83.3%) women (n = 55/60; 91.7%) with a graduate degree (n = 35/60; 55.0%) who were working full-time (n = 38/60; 63.3%). At baseline, the average HDI score (51.4, SD = 19.0) indicated a moderate level of disability and the majority of participants (50/60, 83.3%) fell in the "Severe Disability" range in the MIDAS. Participants recorded an average of 16.0 (SD = 5.9) headache days/30 days, with an average headache attack pain intensity of 1.7 on a 4-point scale (SD = 0.3), indicating moderate intensity. Average levels of daily disability reported on the MIDI were 3.1/10 (SD = 1.8). For the HDI, mean scores decreased more from Month 0 to Month 4 in the MBCT-M group (-14.3) than the waitlist/treatment as an usual group (-0.2; P < .001). For the MIDAS, the group*month interaction was not significant when accounting for the divided alpha, P = .027; across all participants in both groups, the estimated proportion of participants falling in the "Severe Disability" category fell significantly from 88.3% at Month 0 to 66.7% at Month 4, P < .001. For diary-reported headache days/30 days an average headache attack pain intensity, neither the group*month interaction (Ps = .773 and .888, respectively) nor the time effect (Ps = .059 and .428, respectively) was significant. Mean MIDI scores decreased in the MBCT-M group (-0.6/10), whereas they increased in the waitlist/treatment as an usual group (+0.3/10), P = .007. CONCLUSIONS: MBCT-M demonstrated efficacy to reduce headache-related disability and attack-level migraine-related disability. MBCT-M is a promising emerging treatment for addressing migraine-related disability.

Cross-Sectional Evaluation of the Psychometric Properties of the Headache-Specific Locus of Control Scale in People With Migraine.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to investigate the psychometric properties (component structure, reliability, and construct validity) of the Headache-Specific Locus of Control scale in several clinical migraine populations. BACKGROUND: Headache-specific locus of control beliefs may impact a person's behavioral decisions that affect the likelihood of migraine attack onset, emotional responses to migraine attacks, coping strategies used, and treatment adherence. The 33-item Headache-Specific Locus of Control scale is the most widely used measure of locus of control specific to headache yet psychometric evaluations remain limited. METHODS: Six hundred and ninety-five adults with a diagnosis of migraine from 5 different research studies completed cross-sectional self-report measures including the Headache-Specific Locus of Control scale and measures of quality of life and disability (Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire and Migraine Disability Assessment). RESULTS: Five Headache-Specific Locus of Control components emerged from Horn's Parallel Analysis, Minimum Average Partial test, and Principal Component Analysis (eigenvalues: Presence of Internal = 5.7, Lack of Internal = 4.0, Luck = 2.9, Doctor = 2.0, and Treatment = 1.5). The 33 Headache-Specific Locus of Control items demonstrated adequate internal consistency for total (α = 0.79) and subscale scores (α's = 0.69 to 0.88). This study found preliminary evidence of convergent validity. For example, Lack of Internal (r = -0.12, P = 0.004), Doctor (r = -0.20, P < .001), and Treatment (r = -0.12, P = .004) beliefs were associated with higher overall migraine-specific quality of life impairments. CONCLUSIONS: The Headache-Specific Locus of Control scale is a reliable and valid measure of headache-specific locus of control. Findings suggest that headache-specific locus of control is more multidimensional than previous conceptualizations and contribute to our understanding of control beliefs as a potential mechanism for migraine treatment.

Behavioral and mind/body interventions in headache: unanswered questions and future research directions.

BACKGROUND: Many unanswered questions remain regarding behavioral and mind/body interventions in the treatment of primary headache disorders in adults. METHODS: We reviewed the literature to ascertain the most pressing unanswered research questions regarding behavioral and mind/body interventions for headache. RESULTS: We identify the most pressing unanswered research questions in this field, describe ideal and practical ways to address these questions, and outline steps needed to facilitate these research efforts. We discuss proposed mechanisms of action of behavioral and mind/body interventions and outline goals for future research in this field. CONCLUSIONS: Although challenges arise from the complex nature of the interventions under study, research that adheres to published study design and reporting standards and focuses closely on answering key questions is most likely to lead to progress in achieving these goals.

Influence of family psychiatric and headache history on migraine-related health care utilization.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to examine the relationship of family history of headache and family history of psychiatric disorders on self-reported health care utilization tendencies for migraine treatment. BACKGROUND: Familial aggregation of both migraine and depression has been well established in the literature. Family history of headache and psychiatric disorders could influence health care utilization tendencies for migraine. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of patients with severe migraine (n = 225) who answered questions about their family history, previous headache treatment history, disability (Headache Disability Inventory), and psychiatric symptoms (Beck Depression Inventory and Beck Anxiety Inventory). Using regression, we examined the relationship between family history of headache, depression, and anxiety and reported headache-related health care utilization. RESULTS: Participants reported family histories of headache (67.6%), anxiety (15.6%), and depression (29.3%). Participants reported seeing a physician for headache an average of 3.1 (standard deviation = 3.8) times in the past 2 years. In a 2-year period, 27.6% of participants reported seeing a general practitioner and 18.5% of participants reported seeing a neurologist. Twenty-eight percent of participants went to urgent care for headaches at least once in the last 2 years. Thirty-nine percent of participants reported using non-pharmacologic treatment for headache in the prior 2 years, with the highest rates of chiropractic manipulation (27.1%) and massage (18.2%), and fewest rates of biofeedback (0.4%), relaxation training (4.4%), psychotherapy (1.8%), physical therapy (4.9%), or acupuncture (1.8%). Family history of anxiety was associated with trying non-pharmacologic treatments for headache, but no other self-reported health care utilization variable. However, neither family history of headache nor family history of depression was associated with self-reported health care utilization tendencies. Headache Disability Inventory was associated with self-reported non-pharmacologic treatments for headache. CONCLUSIONS: Family history of anxiety, but not depression, was associated with utilizing non-pharmacologic treatments for headache. Also, disability was associated with utilizing non-pharmacologic treatments for headache. However, participants reported low rates of utilization for non-pharmacologic treatments with grade-A evidence.