Migraine or any headaches and white matter hyperintensities and their progression in women and men.

BACKGROUND: Cross-sectional and longitudinal studies have been conducted to investigate the association between migraine and any headache and white matter hyperintensities (WMH). However, studies are inconsistent regarding the strength of the association and its clinical significance. The aim of our study was to investigate the association between headache and its subtypes (migraine with aura (MigA+), migraine without aura (MigA-), non-migraine headache (nonMigHA)) and WMH and its course in the population-based 1000BRAINS study using state-of-the-art imaging techniques and migraine classification according to modified international classification of headache disorders. METHODS: Data from 1062 participants (45% women, 60.9 ± 13.0 years) with ever or never headache (neverHA) and complete quantitative (WMH volume) and qualitative (Fazekas classification) WMH data at first imaging and after 3.7 ± 0.7 years (393 participants) were analyzed. The sex-specific association between headache and its subtypes and WMH volume and its change was evaluated by linear regression, between headache and its subtypes and Fazekas score high vs. low (2-3 vs. 0-1) by log-binomial regression, adjusted for confounders. RESULTS: The lifetime prevalence of headache was 77.5% (10.5% MigA+, 26.9% MigA-, 40.1% nonMigHA). The median WMH volume was 4005 (IQR: 2454-6880) mm3 in women and 4812 (2842-8445) mm3 in men. Women with any headaches (all headache types combined) had a 1.23 [1.04; 1.45]-fold higher WMH volume than women who reported never having had a headache. There was no indication of higher Fazekas grading or more WMH progression in women with migraine or any headaches. Men with migraine or any headaches did not have more WMH or WMH progression compared to men without migraine or men who never had headache. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrated no increased occurrence or progression of WMH in participants with mgiraine. But, our results provide some evidence of greater WMH volume in women with headache of any type including migraine. The underlying pathomechanisms and the reasons why this was not shown in men are unclear and require further research.

Migraine patients in Germany - need for medical recognition and new preventive treatments: results from the PANORAMA survey.

BACKGROUND: Migraine is a primary headache disorder characterized by recurrent attacks that may have a significant impact on patients' daily life. Treatment options must often be re-evaluated in light of efficacy, tolerability and compliance issues. Few data on commonly applied treatment algorithms and treatment failures have existed in Germany in 2017/2018. The PANORAMA survey was designed to explore and characterize the migraine healthcare landscape and to demonstrate the medical treatment need at that time in Germany. METHODS: Three different questionnaires were used to assess the profile of the 119 participating centers, characterize migraine patients at centers and evaluate qualitative aspects of the current migraine healthcare situation from a physician´s professional perspective. Data were analyzed as observed and summarized by descriptive statistics. RESULTS: The results demonstrate that once referred to a migraine specialist, the majority of patients continue to be treated at a specialist. At specialized centers, 41.6 % of migraine patients receive prophylactic treatment. 45.4 % of prophylactic treatments are initiated with a beta-blocker and 28.1 % with an anti-epileptic. Pivotal factors to initiate prophylactic treatment are migraine attack frequency and intensity (58.0 %). Treatment decisions are largely based on prior / concomitant diseases and physical constitution of the patient (52.1 %). Following an inadequate treatment, most patients either switch substance class or discontinue prophylactic treatment. CONCLUSIONS: PANORAMA gives a comprehensive overview of the migraine healthcare landscape in Germany in 2017/2018, elucidates a lack of common treatment algorithms and reveals a high demand for defined therapy strategies and new prophylactic treatment going forwards.

Headache service quality evaluation: implementation of quality indicators in primary care in Europe.

BACKGROUND: Lifting The Burden (LTB) and European Headache Federation (EHF) have developed a set of headache service quality indicators, successfully tested in specialist headache centres. Their intended application includes all levels of care. Here we assess their implementation in primary care. METHODS: We included 28 primary-care clinics in Germany (4), Turkey (4), Latvia (5) and Portugal (15). To implement the indicators, we interviewed 111 doctors, 92 nurses and medical assistants, 70 secretaries, 27 service managers and 493 patients, using the questionnaires developed by LTB and EHF. In addition, we evaluated 675 patients' records. Enquiries were in nine domains: diagnosis, individualized management, referral pathways, patient education and reassurance, convenience and comfort, patient satisfaction, equity and efficiency of headache care, outcome assessment and safety. RESULTS: The principal finding was that Implementation proved feasible and practical in primary care. In the process, we identified significant quality deficits. Almost everywhere, histories of headache, especially temporal profiles, were captured and/or assessed inaccurately. A substantial proportion (20%) of patients received non-specific ICD codes such as R51 ("headache") rather than specific headache diagnoses. Headache-related disability and quality of life were not part of routine clinical enquiry. Headache diaries and calendars were not in use. Waiting times were long (e.g., about 60 min in Germany). Nevertheless, most patients (> 85%) expressed satisfaction with their care. Almost all the participating clinics provided equitable and easy access to treatment, and follow-up for most headache patients, without unnecessary barriers. CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrated that headache service quality indicators can be used in primary care, proving both practical and fit for purpose. It also uncovered quality deficits leading to suboptimal treatment, often due to a lack of knowledge among the general practitioners. There were failures of process also. These findings signal the need for additional training in headache diagnosis and management in primary care, where most headache patients are necessarily treated. More generally, they underline the importance of headache service quality evaluation in primary care, not only to identify-quality failings but also to guide improvements. This study also demonstrated that patients' satisfaction is not, on its own, a good indicator of service quality.

Headache service quality: the role of specialized headache centres within structured headache services, and suggested standards and criteria as centres of excellence.

In joint initiatives, the European Headache Federation and Lifting The Burden have described a model of structured headache services (with their basis in primary care), defined service quality in this context, and developed practical methods for its evaluation.Here, in a continuation of the service quality evaluation programme, we set out ten suggested role- and performance-defining standards for specialized headache centres operating as an integral component of these services. Verifiable criteria for evaluation accompany each standard. The purposes are five-fold: (i) to inspire and promote, or stimulate the establishment of, specialized headache centres as centres of excellence; (ii) to define the role of such centres within optimally structured and organized national headache services; (iii) to set out criteria by which such centres may be recognized as exemplary in their fulfilment of this role; (iv) to provide the basis for, and to initiate and motivate, collaboration and networking between such centres both nationally and internationally; (v) ultimately to improve the delivery and quality of health care for headache.

Aids to management of headache disorders in primary care (2nd edition) : on behalf of the European Headache Federation and Lifting The Burden: the Global Campaign against Headache.

The Aids to Management are a product of the Global Campaign against Headache, a worldwide programme of action conducted in official relations with the World Health Organization. Developed in partnership with the European Headache Federation, they update the first edition published 11 years ago.The common headache disorders (migraine, tension-type headache and medication-overuse headache) are major causes of ill health. They should be managed in primary care, firstly because their management is generally not difficult, and secondly because they are so common. These Aids to Management, with the European principles of management of headache disorders in primary care as the core of their content, combine educational materials with practical management aids. They are supplemented by translation protocols, to ensure that translations are unchanged in meaning from the English-language originals.The Aids to Management may be individually downloaded and, as is the case for all products of the Global Campaign against Headache, are available without restriction for non-commercial use.

Structured education to improve primary-care management of headache: how long do the benefits last? A follow-up observational study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Our earlier study showed that structured education of general practitioners (GPs) improved their practice in headache management. Here the duration of this effect was assessed. METHODS: In a follow-up observational study in southern Estonia, subjects were the same six GPs as previously, managing patients presenting with headache as the main complaint. Data reflecting their practice were collected prospectively during a 1-year period commencing 2 years after the educational intervention. The primary outcome measure was referral rate (RR) to neurological services. Comparisons were made with baseline and post-intervention data from the earlier study. RESULTS: In 366 patients consulting during the follow-up period, the RR was 19.9%, lower than at baseline (39.5%; P < 0.0001) or post-intervention (34.7%; P < 0.0001). The RR was diagnosis-dependent: the biggest decline was for migraine. Use of headache diagnostic terms showed changes generally favouring specific terminology. In particular, the proportion of patients given migraine diagnoses greatly increased whilst use of the inappropriate M79.1 (Pericranial) myalgia almost disappeared. Requests for investigations, which had fallen from 26% (of patients seen) at baseline to 4% post-intervention, resurged to 23% (mostly laboratory investigations; requests for X-rays continued to dwindle). Initiation of treatment by the GPs remained at the post-intervention level of just over 80% (up from baseline 58%). CONCLUSIONS: Improvements in GPs' practice after a structured educational programme mostly last for ≥3 years, some showing further betterment. A few measures suggest the beginnings of a decline towards baseline levels. This policy-informing evidence for continuing medical education indicates that the educational programme needs repeating every 2-3 years.

A consensus protocol for the management of medication-overuse headache: Evaluation in a multicentric, multinational study.

INTRODUCTION: The management of medication-overuse headache (MOH) is often difficult and no specific guidelines are available as regards the most practical and effective approaches. In this study we defined and tested a consensus protocol for the management of MOH on a large population of patients distributed in different countries. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The protocol was based on evidence from the literature and on consolidated expertise of the members of the consensus group. The study was conducted according to a multicentric interventional design with the enrolment of 376 MOH subjects in four centres from Europe and two centres in Latin America. The majority of patients were treated according to an outpatient detoxification programme. The post-detoxification follow-up lasted six months. RESULTS: At the final evaluation, two-thirds of the subjects were no longer overusers and in 46.5% of subjects headache had reverted back to an episodic pattern of headache. When comparing the subjects who underwent out-patient detoxification vs those treated with in-patient detoxification, both regimens proved effective, although the drop-out rate was higher in the out-patient approach. CONCLUSIONS: The present findings support the effectiveness and usability of the proposed consensus protocol in different countries with different health care modalities.

Disability, anxiety and depression associated with medication-overuse headache can be considerably reduced by detoxification and prophylactic treatment. Results from a multicentre, multinational study (COMOESTAS project).

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this article is to investigate whether headache-related disability, depression and anxiety can be reduced by detoxification and prophylactic treatment in patients with medication-overuse headache (MOH). METHODS: Patients with MOH were included from six centres in Europe and Latin America in a seven-month cohort study. Before and six months after treatment, the degree of disability was measured by the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) questionnaire, while anxiety and depression were measured by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). RESULTS: A total of 694 patients with MOH were included, of whom 492 completed the study. Headache days were reduced by 58.4% from 23.6 to 9.8 days per month at six months ( P < 0.001). The MIDAS score was reduced by 57.1% from baseline 59.9 to 25.7 ( P < 0.001). Number of patients with depression was reduced by 50.7% from 195 to 96 and number of those with anxiety was reduced by 27.1% from 284 to 207 (both P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Disability, depression and anxiety were considerably reduced in patients with MOH by detoxification and prophylactic treatment. This emphasises the urgent need for increased awareness about avoiding overuse of headache medications and demonstrates that not only headache frequency but also disability are remarkably improved by adequate intervention.

Headache-attributed burden and its impact on productivity and quality of life in Russia: structured healthcare for headache is urgently needed.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The study evaluated headache-attributed burden and its impact on productivity and quality of life (QoL) in Russia. Its purpose was to support recommendations for change. METHODS: A countrywide population-based random sample of 2725 biologically unrelated adults (aged 18-65 years) in 35 cities and nine rural areas of Russia were interviewed in a door-to-door survey. The structured questionnaire enquired into symptom burden, functional disability, lost productive time and QoL (applying the WHOQoL-8 question set), as well as willingness to pay (WTP) for adequate headache treatment, if it were available. RESULTS: Mean lost paid-work days due to headache in the previous 3 months were 1.9 ± 4.2, and mean lost household work days were 3.4 ± 5.7. The estimated annual indirect cost of primary headache disorders was USD 22.8 billion, accounting for 1.75% of gross domestic product. QoL was reduced by all types of primary headaches. According to WHOQoL-8, it was significantly lower in those with headache on ≥15 days/month than in those with episodic headache (24.7 ± 4.6 vs. 28.1 ± 5.0; P < 0.05) and lower in those with migraine than in those with tension-type headache (TTH) (27.1 ± 4.9 vs. 28.8 ± 5.0; P < 0.05). Average WTP for adequate headache treatment was RUB 455 ± 494 per month (median RUB 300), a sum sufficient in most cases, and correlated with illness severity (higher for headache on ≥15 days/month than for migraine, and for migraine than for TTH). CONCLUSIONS: Headache is common, burdensome and costly in Russia and, manifestly, poorly mitigated by existing healthcare. Structured healthcare services for headache need to be urgently put in place.

The prevalence of primary headache disorders in Russia: a countrywide survey.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the 1-year prevalences of primary headache disorders and identify their principal risk factors in the general population of Russia. METHODS: A countrywide population-based random sample of 2725 biologically unrelated adults in 35 cities and nine rural areas were interviewed in a door-to-door survey using a previously validated diagnostic questionnaire. RESULTS: Of the 2725 eligible adults contacted, 2025 (74.3%) responded (females 52.6%, mean age 39.5 ± 13.4 years). Of these, 1273 (62.9%) reported headache 'not related to flu, hangover, cold, head injury' occurring at least once in the previous year. The gender- and age-standardized 1-year prevalence of migraine was 20.8%. Female gender (odds ratio (OR) = 3.8; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.8-5.1) and obesity (OR = 1.5; 1.1-2.1) were positively associated with this type of headache. The gender- and age-standardized 1-year prevalence of tension-type headache (TTH) was 30.8%. TTH was more prevalent in urban than in rural areas (OR = 1.6; 1.3-2.0). Headache on ≥15 days/month was reported by 213 (10.5%) respondents (gender- and age-standardized prevalence 10.4%), and associated with low socioeconomic status (OR = 3.4; 2.4-4.9), obesity (OR = 3.0; 2.1-4.3), female gender (OR = 2.9; 2.1-4.1) and age over 40 years (OR = 2.6; 1.9-3.6). The majority of these respondents (68.1%) overused acute headache medications. CONCLUSION: The study demonstrated a high prevalence of migraine and a very high prevalence of headache on ≥15 days/month, and revealed unmet health-care needs of people with headache in Russia.

The cost of headache disorders in Europe: the Eurolight project.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Headache disorders are very common, but their monetary costs in Europe are unknown. We performed the first comprehensive estimation of how economic resources are lost to headache in Europe. METHODS: From November 2008 to August 2009, a cross-sectional survey was conducted in eight countries representing 55% of the adult EU population. Participation rates varied between 11% and 59%. In total, 8412 questionnaires contributed to this analysis. Using bottom-up methodology, we estimated direct (medications, outpatient health care, hospitalization and investigations) and indirect (work absenteeism and reduced productivity at work) annual per-person costs. Prevalence data, simultaneously collected and, for migraine, also derived from a systematic review, were used to impute national costs. RESULTS: Mean per-person annual costs were €1222 for migraine (95% CI 1055-1389; indirect costs 93%), €303 for tension-type headache (TTH, 95% CI 230-376; indirect costs 92%), €3561 for medication-overuse headache (MOH, 95% CI 2487-4635; indirect costs 92%), and €253 for other headaches (95% CI 99-407; indirect costs 82%). In the EU, the total annual cost of headache amongst adults aged 18-65 years was calculated, according to our prevalence estimates, at €173 billion, apportioned to migraine (€111 billion; 64%), TTH (€21 billion; 12%), MOH (€37 billion; 21%) and other headaches (€3 billion; 2%). Using the 15% systematic review prevalence of migraine, calculated costs were somewhat lower (migraine €50 billion, all headache €112 billion annually). CONCLUSIONS: Headache disorders are prominent health-related drivers of immense economic losses for the EU. This has immediate implications for healthcare policy. Health care for headache can be both improved and cost saving.

[Clinical application of pain-related evoked potentials]. / Klinische Anwendung schmerzevozierter Potenziale.

Pain-related evoked potentials (PREPs) represent a novel method for the evaluation of peripheral and central nociceptive pathways, e.g. in the diagnosis of small fiber neuropathy (SFN) or after therapeutic interventions for headache. Compared to contact heat-evoked and laser-evoked potentials, recording of PREPs is less stressful for the subjects and technically less demanding. The clinical usefulness of PREPs has been described for SFN associated with diabetes, HIV and hepatitis C infections as well as in headache and facial pain disorders. They have also been evaluated after interventional methods, such as direct current stimulation (tDCS). The article reviews and discusses the advantages and pitfalls of this technique in the context of recent clinical studies as compared to other paradigms of peripheral electrical stimulation and delineates perspectives and possible indications.

Beta-blocker migraine prophylaxis affects the excitability of the visual cortex as revealed by transcranial magnetic stimulation.

The objective of this study is to assess effects of beta-blocker migraine prophylaxis on cortical excitability determined by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). Phosphene and motor thresholds (PT, MT) were investigated in 29 patients with migraine, in 15 of them prior to and following preventive medication with metoprolol and in 14 patients without prophylaxis. Following prophylaxis headache frequency significantly decreased (p = 0.005) and mean PT were significantly increased (51.5 ± 7.5 vs. 63.6 ± 8.4%) compared to patients without preventive treatment (53.7 ± 5.3 vs. 52.3 ± 6.3%; p = 0.040). Mean MT did not significantly differ either between groups or due to treatment. In the group of all patients, a significant inverse correlation between headache frequency and the level of PT was found (R = -0.629; p < 0.01). There was, however, no significant correlation in the subgroups of patients. We conclude that (a) clinical efficacy of beta-blocker treatment in migraine could be (at least partly) linked to its ability to modulate the excitability of the visual cortex and (b) the PT determined by TMS appears suitable to assess the effects of prophylaxis on cortical excitability in the individual patient. This may be useful in clinical trials investigating migraine preventive drugs.

Prevalence of primary headaches in Germany: results of the German Headache Consortium Study.

We investigated the prevalence of migraine (MIG), tension-type headache (TTH), and chronic headache in a population-based sample in Germany. A total of 18,000 subjects aged between 18 and 65 years were screened from 2003 until 2005 using a validated questionnaire. Overall 9,944 participants (55.2%) responded (mean age 43 ± 13.1 years, 52.7% women). Headache frequency <15 days/month was reported by 5,350 (55.5%) subjects of whom 1,601 (16.6%, [95% confidence interval (95% CI): 15.9-17.4]) reported episodic MIG, 1,202 (12.5%, 95% CI 11.8-13.1) episodic TTH, and 1,150 (11.9%, [11.3-12.6]) episodic MIG + episodic TTH, 1,396 (14.5%, [13.8-15.2]) unclassifiable headache. In women, episodic MIG peaked between 36 and 40 years, episodic MIG + TTH between 18 and 35 years and episodic TTH between 56 and 66 years. In men, episodic MIG was predominant between 36 and 45 years, episodic MIG + TTH between 26 and 35 years and episodic TTH showed comparable frequency between 36 and 66 years. Headache ≥15 days/month was reported by 2.6% (n = 255, [95% CI 2.3-3]). Chronic MIG was reported by 1.1% (n = 108, [0.91-1.33]), chronic TTH (n = 50, [95% CI 0.4-0.7]), chronic MIG + TTH 0.8% (n = 74, 95% CI 0.6-0.9) and unclassifiable headache 0.2% (n = 23, [95% CI 0.1-0.3]). Chronic headache was more frequent in women compared to men with the highest prevalence between 46 and 65 years. It is of note that the number of subjects with chronic headache is small in all age groups. The results of our large, population-based study provide reliable, age- and sex-specific estimates of the prevalence of primary headache disorders in Germany. The prevalence with respect to episodic and chronic primary headache disorders in Germany is comparable to other European countries and the USA.

Cost of healthcare for patients with migraine in five European countries: results from the International Burden of Migraine Study (IBMS).

Migraine is a disabling neurological disease that affects 14.7 % of Europeans. Studies evaluating the economic impact of migraine are complex to conduct adequately and with time become outdated as healthcare systems evolve. This study sought to quantify and compare direct medical costs of chronic migraine (CM) and episodic migraine (EM) in five European countries. Cross-sectional data collected via a web-based survey were screened for migraine and classified as CM (≥15 headache days/month) or EM (<15 headache days/month), and included sociodemographics, resource use data and medication use. Unit cost data, gathered using publicly available sources, were analyzed for each type of service, stratified by migraine status. Univariate and multivariate log-normal regression models were used to examine the relationship between various factors and their impact on total healthcare costs. This economic analysis included data from respondents with migraine in the UK, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain. CM participants had higher level of disability and more prevalent psychiatric disorders compared to EM. CM participants had more provider visits, emergency department/hospital visits, and diagnostic tests; the medical costs were three times higher for CM than EM. Per patient annual costs were highest in the UK and Spain and lower in France and Germany. CM was associated with higher medical resource use and total costs compared to EM in all study countries, suggesting that treatments that reduce headache frequency could decrease the clinical and economic burden of migraine in Europe. Comparing patterns of care and outcomes among countries may facilitate the development of more cost-effective care, and bring greater recognition to patients affected by migraine.

Chronic migraine: classification and comparisons.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to field test different chronic migraine (CM) criteria and compare CM epidemiological profiles, which include demographic, personal, and lifestyle characteristics, with high-frequency episodic migraine (HFEM) and low-frequency episodic migraine (LFEM). METHODS: Questionnaires were mailed to a random sample of 18,000 18-65-year-olds in demographically diverse regions of Germany. The epidemiological data for the three classifications of CM, LFEM and HFEM were assessed using descriptive statistics, Pearson Chi-square, and analysis of variance tests. RESULTS: Among 9350 respondents, CM_I was the most restrictive (N = 37, 0.4%), followed by CM_II (N = 45, 0.5%) and CM_III (N = 185, 2.0%). CM groups did not differ in distribution by age, gender, body mass index, education or smoking and alcohol consumption. Compared to those with LFEM and HFEM, those with CM (CM_III) had significantly different epidemiological profiles. CONCLUSIONS: CM prevalence varies by case definition. The epidemiological profiles of the three CM groups are similar but differ significantly from those of HFEM and LFEM. Optimal definitions for clinical practice and epidemiological research require additional field testing.

The burden of headache in Russia: validation of the diagnostic questionnaire in a population-based sample.

BACKGROUND: We report validation of the Russian-language version of the Lifting The Burden headache screening and diagnostic questionnaire in a population-based sample of 501 individuals in four cities (Smolensk, Tchelyabinsk, Nishny Novgorod and Tver) and three rural areas (Tula, Tver and Gornyi) of Russia. METHODS: The structured questionnaire, based on ICHD-II criteria, was applied face to face by trained non-medical interviewers calling at randomly selected households. Response rates were about 73% in cities and 80% in rural areas. RESULTS: Of those responding, 301 reported headache in the previous year; of the total sample, 143 people with and 47 without headache according to the questionnaire were re-interviewed by telephone by one of the two neurologists unaware of the questionnaire diagnoses. Migraine (MIG), either definite (dMIG) or probable (pMIG), was diagnosed by the questionnaire in 72 cases, and tension-type headache (TTH), either definite (dTTH) or probable (pTTH), in 66 cases; the five others with headache were unclassifiable by questionnaire. Physicians diagnosed dMIG or pMIG in 65 cases, dTTH or pTTH in 89 cases and no headache in 31 cases; in five cases, headache was unclassifiable. The questionnaire had sensitivities and specificities of 77% and 82% for MIG (κ=0.58) and of 64% and 91% for TTH (κ=0.56). CONCLUSIONS: We concluded that the questionnaire can be utilized in a population-based countrywide survey of the burden attributable to primary headache disorders in Russia.

What do the patients with medication overuse headache expect from treatment and what are the preferred sources of information?

Lack of knowledge on patients' expectations to treatment may lead to misunderstandings and prevent successful outcome. Presently, treatment of medication overuse headache (MOH) leads to improvement in up to 75% of patients, but the relapse rate may exceed 40%. This study aimed to evaluate the preferences on information and expectations to treatment in patients entering a treatment programme for MOH. A questionnaire on patients' needs and preferences on information and expectations was distributed to 65 MOH patients from specialized headache clinics in Italy, Germany and Denmark. A total of 75% selected personal verbal information as their primary need, significantly higher than the percentage of patients who selected leaflets and website information 35 and 35%, respectively (p < 0.001). Telephone and E-mail consultation was requested by 59 and 48%, respectively. The information source preferred was again personal verbal information (82%), significantly higher than all other information sources (p < 0.001). In decreasing order, patients preferred telephone consultation (48%), E-mail consultation (44%), website information (41%), and leaflets (33%). 51% expected their headache to be cured, 71 and 57% requested effective prevention and fast relief of the headache episodes. 80 and 75%, respectively expected reduction in frequency and intensity. A total of 64% expected information about self-management and 52% expected to receive education on their headaches. The study demonstrates that patients in specialized headache centres prefer personal information, that expectations are very high, and that education and information are important. Providing the right information and thus give patients realistic expectations might enhance compliance and improve outcome.