Mechanisms of change in posttraumatic headache-related disability: A mediation model.

OBJECTIVE: To explore whether the association between change in headache management self-efficacy and posttraumatic headache-related disability is partially mediated by a change in anxiety symptom severity. BACKGROUND: Many cognitive-behavioral therapy treatments for headache emphasize stress management, which includes anxiety management strategies; however, little is currently known about mechanisms of change in posttraumatic headache-related disability. Increasing our understanding of mechanisms could lead to improvements in treatments for these debilitating headaches. METHODS: This study is a secondary analysis of veterans (N = 193) recruited to participate in a randomized clinical trial of cognitive-behavioral therapy, cognitive processing therapy, or treatment as usual for persistent posttraumatic headache. The direct relationship between headache management self-efficacy and headache-related disability, along with partial mediation through change in anxiety symptoms was tested. RESULTS: The mediated latent change direct, mediated, and total pathways were statistically significant. The path analysis supported a significant direct pathway between headache management self-efficacy and headache-related disability (b = -0.45, p < 0.001; 95% confidence interval [CI: -0.58, -0.33]). The total effect of change of headache management self-efficacy scores on change in Headache Impact Test-6 scores was significant with a moderate-to-strong effect (b = -0.57, p = 0.001; 95% CI [-0.73, -0.41]). There was also an indirect effect through anxiety symptom severity change (b = -0.12, p = 0.003; 95% CI [-0.20, -0.04]). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, most of the improvements in headache-related disability were related to increased headache management self-efficacy with mediation occurring through change in anxiety. This indicates that headache management self-efficacy is a likely mechanism of change of posttraumatic headache-related disability with decreases in anxiety explaining part of the improvement in headache-related disability.

Underuse of Behavioral Treatments for Headache: a Narrative Review Examining Societal and Cultural Factors.

Migraine affects over 40 million Americans and is the world's second most disabling condition. As the majority of medical care for migraine occurs in primary care settings, not in neurology nor headache subspecialty practices, healthcare system interventions should focus on primary care. Though there is grade A evidence for behavioral treatment (e.g., biofeedback, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), and relaxation techniques) for migraine, these treatments are underutilized. Behavioral treatments may be a valuable alternative to opioids, which remain widely used for migraine, despite the US opioid epidemic and guidelines that recommend against them. Identifying and removing barriers to the use of headache behavioral therapy could help reduce the disability as well as the personal and social costs of migraine. These techniques will have their greatest impact if offered in primary care settings to the lower socioeconomic status groups at greatest risk for migraine. We review the societal and cultural challenges that impose barriers to optimal use of non-pharmacological treatment services. These barriers include insufficient knowledge of migraine/headache behavioral treatments and insufficient availability of clinicians trained in non-pharmacological treatment delivery; limited access in underserved communities; financial burden; and stigma associated with both headache and mental health diagnoses and treatment. For each barrier, we discuss potential approaches to minimizing its effect and thus enhancing non-pharmacological treatment utilization.Case ExampleA 25-year-old graduate student with a prior history of headaches in college is attending school in the evenings while working a full-time job. Now, his headaches have significant nausea and photophobia. They are twice weekly and are disabling enough that he is unable to complete homework assignments. He does not understand why the headaches occur on Saturdays when he pushes through all week to get through his examinations that take place on Friday evenings. He tried two different migraine preventive medications, but neither led to the 50% reduction in headache days his doctor had hoped for. His doctor had suggested cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) before initiating the medications, but he had been too busy to attend the appointments, and the challenges in finding an in-network provider proved difficult. Now with the worsening headaches, he opted for the CBT and by the fifth week had already noted improvements in his headache frequency and intensity.

Persistent posttraumatic headaches and functioning in veterans: Injury type can matter.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the relationship between head trauma types (blast injury, blunt injury, combined blast+blunt injury) with subsequent headache presentations and functioning. BACKGROUND: Posttraumatic headaches (PTHs), the most common sequelae of traumatic brain injury (TBI), are painful and disabling. More than 400,000 veterans report having experienced a TBI, and understanding the predictors of PTHs may guide treatment developments. METHODS: This study used a nested-cohort design analyzing baseline data from a randomized clinical trial of cognitive behavioral therapy for PTH (N = 190). Participants had PTH (from blast and/or blunt head trauma) and symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The Structured Diagnostic Interview for Headache-Revised and Ohio State University Traumatic Brain Injury Identification Method were used to phenotype headaches and head injury histories, respectively. RESULTS: Individuals with persistent PTHs after a combined blast and blunt head trauma were more likely (OR =3.45; 95% CI [1.41, 8.4]) to experience chronic (vs. episodic) PTHs compared with the blunt trauma only group (23/33, 70% vs. 26/65, 40%, respectively); and they were more likely (OR =2.51; 95% CI [1.07, 5.9]) to experience chronic PTH compared with the blast trauma only group (44/92, 48%). There were no differences between head injury type on headache-related disability, depression symptoms, or severity of PTSD symptoms. CONCLUSION: The combination of blast and blunt injuries was associated with headache chronicity, but not headache disability. Considering the refractory nature of chronic headaches, the potential added and synergistic effects of distinct head injuries warrant further study.

Reason to doubt the ICHD-3 7-day inclusion criterion for mild TBI-related posttraumatic headache: A nested cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Posttraumatic headache is difficult to define and there is debate about the specificity of the 7-day headache onset criterion in the current definition. There is limited evidence available to guide decision making about this criterion. METHOD: A nested cohort study of 193 treatment-seeking veterans who met criteria for persistent headache attributed to mild traumatic injury to the head, including some veterans with delayed headache onset up to 90 days post-injury, was undertaken. Survival analysis examined the proportion of participants reporting headache over time and differences in these proportions based on sex, headache phenotype, and mechanism of injury. RESULT: 127 participants (66%; 95% CI: 59-72%) reported headache onset within 7 days of head injury and 65 (34%) reported headache onset between 8 days and 3 months after head injury. Fourteen percent of participants reported pre-existing migraine before head injury, and there was no difference in the proportion of veterans with pre-existing migraine based on headache onset. Headache onset times were not associated with sex, headache phenotype, or mechanism of injury. There were no significant differences in proportion of veterans with headache onset within 7 days of head injury based on headache phenotype (70% migraine onset within 7 days, 70% tension-type headache within 7 days, 56% cluster headache within 7 days; p ≥ .364). Similar findings were observed for head injury (64% blast, 60% blunt; p = .973). There were no significant differences observed between headache onset groups for psychiatric symptoms (Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist for DSM-5 = 1.3, 95% CI = -27.5, 30.1; Patient Health Questionnaire-9 Item = 3.5, 95% CI = -6.3, 3.7; Generalized Anxiety Disorder Screener = 6.5, 95% CI = -2.7, 15.6). CONCLUSIONS: Although most of the sample reported headache onset within 7 days of head injury, one-third experienced an onset outside of the diagnostic range. Additionally, veterans with headache onset within 7 days of head injury were not meaningfully different from those with later onset based on sex, headache phenotype, or mechanism of head injury. The ICHD-3 diagnostic criteria for 7-day headache onset should be expanded to 3 months. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT02419131.

Pain worsening with physical activity during migraine attacks in women with overweight/obesity: A prospective evaluation of frequency, consistency, and correlates.

Background Migraine is a neurological disease involving recurrent attacks of moderate-to-severe and disabling head pain. Worsening of pain with routine physical activity during attacks is a principal migraine symptom; however, the frequency, individual consistency, and correlates of this symptom are unknown. Given the potential of this symptom to undermine participation in daily physical activity, an effective migraine prevention strategy, further research is warranted. This study is the first to prospectively evaluate (a) frequency and individual consistency of physical activity-related pain worsening during migraine attacks, and (b) potential correlates, including other migraine symptoms, anthropometric characteristics, psychological symptoms, and daily physical activity. Methods Participants were women (n = 132) aged 18-50 years with neurologist-confirmed migraine and overweight/obesity seeking weight loss treatment in the Women's Health and Migraine trial. At baseline, participants used a smartphone diary to record migraine attack occurrence, severity, and symptoms for 28 days. Participants also completed questionnaires and 7 days of objective physical activity monitoring before and after diary completion, respectively. Patterning of the effect of physical activity on pain was summarized within-subject by calculating the proportion (%) of attacks in which physical activity worsened, improved, or had no effect on pain. Results Participants reported 5.5 ± 2.8 (mean ± standard deviation) migraine attacks over 28 days. The intraclass correlation (coefficient = 0.71) indicated high consistency in participants' reports of activity-related pain worsening or not. On average, activity worsened pain in 34.8 ± 35.6% of attacks, had no effect on pain in 61.8 ± 34.6% of attacks and improved pain in 3.4 ± 12.7% of attacks. Few participants (9.8%) reported activity-related pain worsening in all attacks. A higher percentage of attacks where physical activity worsened pain demonstrated small-sized correlations with more severe nausea, photophobia, phonophobia, and allodynia (r = 0.18 - 0.22, p < 0.05). Pain worsening due to physical activity was not related to psychological symptoms or total daily physical activity. Conclusions There is large variability in the effect of physical activity on pain during migraine attacks that can be accounted for by individual differences. For a minority of participants, physical activity consistently contributed to pain worsening. More frequent physical activity-related pain worsening was related to greater severity of other migraine symptoms and pain sensitivity, which supports the validity of this diagnostic feature. Study protocol ClinicalTrials.govIdentifier: NCT01197196.

A Critical Exploration of Migraine as a Health Disparity: the Imperative of an Equity-Oriented, Intersectional Approach.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Despite recognition of rising prevalence and significant burden, migraine remains underestimated, underdiagnosed, and undertreated. This is especially true among groups who have been historically, socially, and economically marginalized such as communities of color, women, people experiencing poverty, people with lower levels of education, and people who hold more than one of these marginalized identities. While there is growing public and professional interest in disparities in migraine prevalence, there is a paucity of research focusing on racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities, and the social and structural determinants of health and equity that perpetuate these disparities. From a health equity perspective, migraine research and treatment require an examination not only of biological and behavioral factors, but of these identities and underlying, intersecting social and structural determinants of health. RECENT FINDINGS: Significant disparities in migraine incidence, prevalence, migraine-related pain and disability, access to care, and quality of care persist among marginalized and underserved groups: African Americans, Hispanics, people experiencing poverty, un- or under-employment, the un- and under-insured, people who have been exposed to stressful and traumatic events across the lifespan, and people experiencing multiple, overlapping marginalized identities. These same groups are largely underrepresented in migraine research, despite bearing disproportionate burden. Current approaches to understanding health disparities in migraine largely assume an essentializing approach, i.e., documenting differences between single identity groups-e.g., race or income or education level-rather than considering the mechanisms of disparities: the social and structural determinants of health. While disparities in migraine are becoming more widely acknowledged, we assert that migraine is more aptly understood as a health equity issue, that is, a condition in which many of the health disparities are avoidable. It is important in research and clinical practice to consider perspectives that incorporate a cultural understanding of racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic identity within and across all levels of society. Incorporating perspectives of intersectionality provides a strong foundation for understanding the role of these complex combination of factors on migraine pain and treatment. We urge the adoption of intersectional and systems perspectives in research, clinical practice, and policy to examine (1) interplay of race, gender, and social location as key factors in understanding, diagnosing, and treating migraine, and (2) the complex configurations of social and structural determinants of health that interact to produce health inequities in migraine care. An intentional research and clinical focus on these factors stands to improve how migraine is identified, documented, and treated among marginalized populations.

Forecasting Individual Headache Attacks Using Perceived Stress: Development of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Persons With Episodic Migraine.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a prediction model that forecasts future migraine attacks for an individual headache sufferer. BACKGROUND: Many headache patients and physicians believe that precipitants of headache can be identified and avoided or managed to reduce the frequency of headache attacks. Of the numerous candidate triggers, perceived stress has received considerable attention for its association with the onset of headache in episodic and chronic headache sufferers. However, no evidence is available to support forecasting headache attacks within individuals using any of the candidate headache triggers. METHODS: This longitudinal cohort with forecasting model development study enrolled 100 participants with episodic migraine with or without aura, and N = 95 contributed 4626 days of electronic diary data and were included in the analysis. Individual headache forecasts were derived from current headache state and current levels of stress using several aspects of the Daily Stress Inventory, a measure of daily hassles that is completed at the end of each day. The primary outcome measure was the presence/absence of any headache attack (head pain > 0 on a numerical rating scale of 0-10) over the next 24 h period. RESULTS: After removing missing data (n = 431 days), participants in the study experienced a headache attack on 1613/4195 (38.5%) days. A generalized linear mixed-effects forecast model using either the frequency of stressful events or the perceived intensity of these events fit the data well. This simple forecasting model possessed promising predictive utility with an AUC of 0.73 (95% CI 0.71-0.75) in the training sample and an AUC of 0.65 (95% CI 0.6-0.67) in a leave-one-out validation sample. This forecasting model had a Brier score of 0.202 and possessed good calibration between forecasted probabilities and observed frequencies but had only low levels of resolution (ie, sharpness). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that future headache attacks can be forecasted for a diverse group of individuals over time. Future work will enhance prediction through improvements in the assessment of stress as well as the development of other candidate domains to use in the models.

Aerobic Exercise for Reducing Migraine Burden: Mechanisms, Markers, and Models of Change Processes.

BACKGROUND: Engagement in regular exercise routinely is recommended as an intervention for managing and preventing migraine, and yet empirical support is far from definitive. We possess at best a weak understanding of how aerobic exercise and resulting change in aerobic capacity influence migraine, let alone the optimal parameters for exercise regimens as migraine therapy (eg, who will benefit, when to prescribe, optimal types, and doses/intensities of exercise, level of anticipated benefit). These fundamental knowledge gaps critically limit our capacity to deploy exercise as an intervention for migraine. OVERVIEW: Clear articulation of the markers and mechanisms through which aerobic exercise confers benefits for migraine would prove invaluable and could yield insights on migraine pathophysiology. Neurovascular and neuroinflammatory pathways, including an effect on obesity or adiposity, are obvious candidates for study given their role both in migraine as well as the changes known to accrue with regular exercise. In addition to these biological pathways, improvements in aerobic fitness and migraine alike also are mediated by changes in psychological and sociocognitive factors. Indeed a number of specific mechanisms and pathways likely are operational in the relationship between exercise and migraine improvement, and it remains to be established whether these pathways operate in parallel or synergistically. As heuristics that might conceptually benefit our research programs here forward, we: (1) provide an extensive listing of potential mechanisms and markers that could account for the effects of aerobic exercise on migraine and are worthy of empirical exploration and (2) present two exemplar conceptual models depicting pathways through which exercise may serve to reduce the burden of migraine. CONCLUSION: Should the promise of aerobic exercise as a feasible and effective migraine therapy be realized, this line of endeavor stands to benefit migraineurs (including the many who presently remain suboptimally treated) by providing a new therapeutic avenue as an alternative or augmentative compliment to established interventions for migraine.

Well-Established and Empirically Supported Behavioral Treatments for Migraine.

This paper provides an overview of the well-established and empirically supported behavioral interventions for the treatment of migraine. The considerable evidence base addressing behavioral interventions amassed since 1969 has conclusively established the efficacy of therapies featuring combinations of relaxation, biofeedback, and stress management training, and demonstrated they are capable of yielding benefits on par with pharmacological therapies for migraine. Behavioral interventions also are well suited for delivery across a variety of different contexts (e.g., group vs. individual, standard clinic vs. limited therapist contact, face-to-face vs. technology-assisted). Despite the amply established efficacy and effectiveness of these self-management interventions for the treatment of migraine, the availability and implementation of these approaches remain limited for many headache sufferers. We anticipate the technological advances in delivery platforms will provide better access to behavioral self-management strategies for migraine.

A systematic review of behavioral headache interventions with an aerobic exercise component.

BACKGROUND: Behavioral approaches have been found to be effective in managing chronic headache. Recently, attention has been given to the role of exercise in chronic headache management, although much of the literature addresses it as a monotherapy. The current review assesses the effectiveness of exercise as an adjunct to other behavioral treatments for chronic headache. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the methodology and outcomes of studies using behavioral headache interventions with an aerobic exercise component. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted on PubMed and PsychInfo to identify studies that offered or recommended aerobic exercise as part of a multicomponent treatment for headaches. The search included only those articles that were written in English and published in academic journals. RESULTS: Nine studies met inclusion criteria, of which 2 were randomized controlled trials. Despite methodological limitations, results of existing studies suggest that the behavioral headache interventions that include aerobic exercise may be associated with positive outcomes for headache variables. Four single-group studies reported statistically significant improvements in at least 1 headache variable at the end of treatment. Both randomized controlled trials and 1 non-randomized trial reported statistically significant post-treatment improvement in at least 1 headache outcome variable in the intervention group compared with control groups. CONCLUSIONS: Incorporating exercise into behavioral headache treatments appears to be promising, but as studies to date have not evaluated the individual contribution of exercise, its role in managing headache symptoms is unclear. Further work is needed to evaluate the unique role of exercise in such treatment programs. Recommendations for future research include adhering to published guidelines for clinical trial design and reporting, adhering to existing guidelines for headache research (such as reporting outcome data for multiple headache variables), developing exercise prescriptions based on public health recommendations, and reporting all aspects of exercise prescriptions.

Biobehavioral treatments of migraine.

Pharmacotherapies are the mainstays of migraine management, though it is not uncommon for them to be poorly tolerated, contraindicated, or only modestly effective. There is a clear need for nonpharmacologic migraine therapies, either employed alone or in combination with pharmacotherapies. Behavioral and psychosocial factors known to contribute to the onset, exacerbation, and persistence of primary headache disorders (e.g., stress, sleep, diet) serve as targets within a self-management model for migraine-a model that features headache pharmacotherapies, behavioral skills training, medication adherence facilitation, relevant lifestyle changes, and techniques to limit headache-related impairment. Behavioral self-management interventions for migraine with the strongest empirical validation (e.g., relaxation training, biofeedback training, cognitive-behavior therapies) presently are available in specialty headache treatment centers and routinely show promise for reducing headache pain frequency/severity and related impairment, reducing reliance on pharmacotherapies, enhancing personal control over headache activity, and reducing headache-related distress and symptoms. These approaches may be particularly well-suited among patients for whom pharmacotherapies are unwanted, poorly tolerated, or contraindicated. Though underutilized, clinical trials indicate that new and well-established behavioral therapies are similarly effective to migraine medications for migraine prevention among adults and can be successfully employed in various settings.

Rethinking headache chronification.

The objective of this series is to examine several threats to the interpretation of headache chronification studies that arise from methodological issues. The study of headache chronification has extensively used longitudinal designs with 2 or more measurement occasions. Unfortunately, application of these designs, when combined with the common practice of extreme score selection as well as the extant challenges in measuring headache frequency rates (eg, unreliability, regression to the mean), induces substantive threats to accurate interpretation of findings. Partitioning the amount of observed variance in rates of chronification and remission attributable to regression artifacts is a critical yet previously overlooked step to learning more about headache as a potentially progressive disease. In this series on rethinking headache chronification, we provide an overview of methodological issues in this area (this paper), highlight the influence of rounding error on estimates of headache frequency (second paper), examine the influence of random error and regression artifacts on estimates of chronification and remission (third paper), and consider future directions for this line of research (fourth paper).

Influence of random measurement error on estimated rates of headache chronification and remission.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the potential influence of random measurement error on estimated rates of chronification and remission. BACKGROUND: Studies of headache chronification and remission examine the proportion of headache sufferers that move across a boundary of 15 headache days per month between 2 points in time. At least part of that apparent movement may represent measurement error or random variation in headache activity over time. METHODS: A mathematical simulation was conducted to examine the influence of varying degrees of measurement error on rates of chronic migraine onset and remission. Using data from the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention Study, we estimated a starting distribution of headache days from 0 to 30 in the migraine population. Assuming various levels of measurement error, we then simulated 2 sets of data for Time 1 and Time 2. The "individuals" in this study were assumed to have no real change in headache frequency from Time 1 to Time 2. The observed variations in headache frequency were those influenced by imputed random variance to resemble typical measurement error or natural variability. Using this simulation approach, we estimated the amount of chronification and remission rates that might be attributed simply to statistical artifacts such as unreliability or regression to the mean. RESULTS: As the degree of measurement error increased, the amounts of illusory chronification and remission increased substantially. For example, if the headache frequency of sufferers randomly varies by only 2 headache days each month due to chance alone, a substantial degree of illusory chronification (0.6% to 1.3%) and illusory remission (10.3% to 23.5%) rates are expected simply due to random variation. CONCLUSIONS: Random variation, without real change, has the potential to influence estimated rates of progression and remission in longitudinal migraine studies. The magnitude of random variation needed to fully reproduce observed rates of progression and remission are implausibly large. Recommendations are offered to improve estimation of rates of progression and remission, reducing the influence of random variation.

Methodological issues in studying rates and predictors of migraine progression and remission.

BACKGROUND: The progression and remission of migraine and the risk factors that determine the course of illness have been intensively studied for the past decade. METHODS: In this fourth paper in a series of methodological articles, we summarize crucial issues that influence studies of migraine clinical course, and suggest directions and opportunities for future research. RESULTS: Defining chronic migraine (CM) based on 15 or more headache days per month is problematic because headache frequency varies from month to month. We propose methods of defining CM as a trait and not as a state of headache frequency. Our notions of progression and remission, defined by the crossing of an arbitrary frequency boundary, are also problematic; we propose alternative approaches. Measuring headache frequency is challenging because of measurement error, temporal sampling error, and real change over time. CONCLUSIONS: We suggest alternative approaches for defining migraine subtypes, measuring change in frequency, defining progression and remission, and modeling change over time. Our suggestions are intended to encourage dialogue and need refinement and evaluation. Our long-term goal is to improve classification and measurement to facilitate the discovery of risk factors, genes, and other biological processes that determine the onset and course of migraine.

Causality and headache triggers.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to explore the conditions necessary to assign causal status to headache triggers. BACKGROUND: The term "headache trigger" is commonly used to label any stimulus that is assumed to cause headaches. However, the assumptions required for determining if a given stimulus in fact has a causal-type relationship in eliciting headaches have not been explicated. METHODS: A synthesis and application of Rubin's Causal Model is applied to the context of headache causes. From this application, the conditions necessary to infer that 1 event (trigger) causes another (headache) are outlined using basic assumptions and examples from relevant literature. RESULTS: Although many conditions must be satisfied for a causal attribution, 3 basic assumptions are identified for determining causality in headache triggers: (1) constancy of the sufferer, (2) constancy of the trigger effect, and (3) constancy of the trigger presentation. A valid evaluation of a potential trigger's effect can only be undertaken once these 3 basic assumptions are satisfied during formal or informal studies of headache triggers. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluating these assumptions is extremely difficult or infeasible in clinical practice, and satisfying them during natural experimentation is unlikely. Researchers, practitioners, and headache sufferers are encouraged to avoid natural experimentation to determine the causal effects of headache triggers. Instead, formal experimental designs or retrospective diary studies using advanced statistical modeling techniques provide the best approaches to satisfy the required assumptions and inform causal statements about headache triggers.

Rounding behavior in the reporting of headache frequency complicates headache chronification research.

OBJECTIVES: To characterize the extent of measurement error arising from rounding in headache frequency reporting (days per month) in a population sample of headache sufferers. BACKGROUND: When reporting numerical health information, individuals tend to round their estimates. The tendency to round to the nearest 5 days when reporting headache frequency can distort distributions and engender unreliability in frequency estimates in both clinical and research contexts. METHODS: This secondary analysis of the 2005 American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention study survey characterized the population distribution of 30-day headache frequency among community headache sufferers and determined the extent of numerical rounding ("heaping") in self-reported data. Headache frequency distributions (days per month) were examined using a simplified version of Wang and Heitjan's approach to heaping to estimate the probability that headache sufferers round to a multiple of 5 when providing frequency reports. Multiple imputation was used to estimate a theoretical "true" headache frequency. RESULTS: Of the 24,000 surveys, headache frequency data were available for 15,976 respondents diagnosed with migraine (68.6%), probable migraine (8.3%), or episodic tension-type headache (10.0%); the remainder had other headache types. The mean number of headaches days/month was 3.7 (standard deviation = 5.6). Examination of the distribution of headache frequency reports revealed a disproportionate number of responses centered on multiples of 5 days. The odds that headache frequency was rounded to 5 increased by 24% with each 1-day increase in headache frequency (odds ratio: 1.24, 95% confidence interval: 1.23 to 1.25), indicating that heaping occurs most commonly at higher headache frequencies. Women were more likely to round than men, and rounding decreased with increasing age and increased with symptoms of depression. CONCLUSIONS: Because of the coarsening induced by rounding, caution should be used when distinguishing between episodic and chronic headache sufferers using self-reported estimates of headache frequency. Unreliability in frequency estimates is of particular concern among individuals with high-frequency (chronic) headache. Employing shorter recall intervals when assessing headache frequency, preferably using daily diaries, may improve accuracy and allow more precise estimation of chronic migraine onset and remission.

Predictors of headache before, during, and after pregnancy: a cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: The present study endeavored to identify predictors of headache during pregnancy, shortly after delivery, and at 8-week follow-up. BACKGROUND: Many women suffer from headaches during pregnancy and the post-partum period. However, little is known about factors that predict headache surrounding childbirth. METHODS: Secondary analysis of longitudinal cohort study of 2434 parturients hospitalized for cesarean or vaginal delivery in 4 university hospitals in the United States and Europe. Data were gathered from interviews and review of medical records shortly after delivery; 972 of the women were contacted 8 weeks later to assess persistent headache. The primary outcome measures were experiencing headache during pregnancy, headache within 72 hours after delivery, and headache at 8 weeks after delivery. RESULTS: Of the parturients, 10% experienced headache during pregnancy, 3.7% within 72 hours after delivery, and 3.6% at 8 weeks postdelivery. Compared to those without a history of headache, a history of headache prior to pregnancy was the strongest predictor of headache during pregnancy (9.8% vs 23.5%; risk ratio 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.4 to 4.0). Experiencing headache during pregnancy (adjusted hazard ratio HR 3.8; 95% CI: 2.4 to 6.2) and receiving needle-based regional anesthesia for pain treatment (adjusted hazard ratio 2.2; 95% CI: 1.1 to 4.5) were independently associated with headache within 72 hours after delivery with event rates of 11.1% and 10.5%, respectively. Compared to those without such a history, headache before pregnancy was significantly associated with experiencing headache 8 weeks after delivery (4.0% vs 23.8%; risk ratio = 6.0; 95% CI: 2.0 to 8.0), but headache during pregnancy or shortly after delivery was not. Several other psychosocial predictors (eg, somatization, smoking before pregnancy) were statistically associated with at least 1 headache outcome. CONCLUSIONS: A history of headache prior to pregnancy is a strong predictor of headache during and after pregnancy, the latter independent of but compounded by spinal injection. Physicians should attend to prior headache history when making decisions about pain management during and after childbirth. As the lack of formal International Classification of Headache Disorders, 2nd Edition (ICHD-II), headache diagnoses is a limitation of this study, future longitudinal studies should replicate the present design while including headache subtyping consistent with ICHD-II nosology.

PTSD symptoms and tinnitus severity: An analysis of veterans with posttraumatic headaches.

OBJECTIVE: Tinnitus and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are among the top service-connected disabilities within the Veterans Health Administration. Extant research shows that there is considerable overlap between tinnitus-related distress and PTSD, including sleep difficulty, irritability, hyperarousal, and concentration problems. However, no studies have prospectively examined the relationship between the two disorders. The purpose of this study was to examine that relationship. METHOD: Participants (N = 112) with posttraumatic headache completed measures of tinnitus and PTSD. Correlational analyses and analyses of variance were conducted to examine the associations with PTSD symptom clusters and factors of tinnitus-related distress. RESULTS: Approximately, half of participants with tinnitus demonstrated severe impairment. Correlational analyses indicated that reexperiencing, avoidance, negative emotions and cognitions, and hyperarousal PTSD symptoms were significantly related to many factors of tinnitus-related distress, including intrusiveness of tinnitus, perceived loudness, awareness, and annoyance. Participants with severe tinnitus demonstrated significantly greater reexperiencing, negative mood/cognitions, hyperarousal, and PTSD total severity compared to those with mild or moderate tinnitus. CONCLUSIONS: Trauma therapists should assess for the presence of tinnitus in order to more fully conceptualize key health problems of help-seeking patients. Heightened psychological symptoms seemingly related to PTSD may be a function of tinnitus-related distress. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Veterans With Comorbid Posttraumatic Headache and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Symptoms: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Posttraumatic headache is the most disabling complication of mild traumatic brain injury. Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms are often comorbid with posttraumatic headache, and there are no established treatments for this comorbidity. Objective: To compare cognitive behavioral therapies (CBTs) for headache and PTSD with treatment per usual (TPU) for posttraumatic headache attributable to mild traumatic brain injury. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a single-site, 3-parallel group, randomized clinical trial with outcomes at posttreatment, 3-month follow-up, and 6-month follow-up. Participants were enrolled from May 1, 2015, through May 30, 2019; data collection ended on October 10, 2019. Post-9/11 US combat veterans from multiple trauma centers were included in the study. Veterans had comorbid posttraumatic headache and PTSD symptoms. Data were analyzed from January 20, 2020, to February 2, 2022. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to 8 sessions of CBT for headache, 12 sessions of cognitive processing therapy for PTSD, or treatment per usual for headache. Main Outcomes and Measures: Co-primary outcomes were headache-related disability on the 6-Item Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) and PTSD symptom severity on the PTSD Checklist for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fifth Edition) (PCL-5) assessed from treatment completion to 6 months posttreatment. Results: A total of 193 post-9/11 combat veterans (mean [SD] age, 39.7 [8.4] years; 167 male veterans [87%]) were included in the study and reported severe baseline headache-related disability (mean [SD] HIT-6 score, 65.8 [5.6] points) and severe PTSD symptoms (mean [SD] PCL-5 score, 48.4 [14.2] points). For the HIT-6, compared with usual care, patients receiving CBT for headache reported -3.4 (95% CI, -5.4 to -1.4; P < .01) points lower, and patients receiving cognitive processing therapy reported -1.4 (95% CI, -3.7 to 0.8; P = .21) points lower across aggregated posttreatment measurements. For the PCL-5, compared with usual care, patients receiving CBT for headache reported -6.5 (95% CI, -12.7 to -0.3; P = .04) points lower, and patients receiving cognitive processing therapy reported -8.9 (95% CI, -15.9 to -1.9; P = .01) points lower across aggregated posttreatment measurements. Adverse events were minimal and similar across treatment groups. Conclusions and Relevance: This randomized clinical trial demonstrated that CBT for headache was efficacious for disability associated with posttraumatic headache in veterans and provided clinically significant improvement in PTSD symptom severity. Cognitive processing therapy was efficacious for PTSD symptoms but not for headache disability. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02419131.

Direct costs of preventive headache treatments: comparison of behavioral and pharmacologic approaches.

OBJECTIVES: This study provides preliminary data and a framework to facilitate cost comparisons for pharmacologic vs behavioral approaches to headache prophylactic treatment. BACKGROUND: There are few empirical demonstrations of cumulative costs for pharmacologic and behavioral headache treatments, and there are no direct comparisons of short- and long-range (5-year) costs for pharmacologic vs behavioral headache treatments. METHODS: Two separate pilot surveys were distributed to a convenience sample of behavioral specialists and physicians identified from the membership of the American Headache Society. Costs of prototypical regimens for preventive pharmacologic treatment (PPT), clinic-based behavioral treatment (CBBT), minimal contact behavioral treatment (MCBT), and group behavioral treatment were assessed. Each survey addressed total cost accumulated during treatment (ie, intake, professional fees) excluding costs of acute medications. The total costs of preventive headache therapy by type of treatment were then evaluated and compared over time. RESULTS: During the initial months of treatment, PPT with inexpensive mediations (<0.75 $/day) represents the least costly regimen and is comparable to MCBT in expense until 6 months. After 6 months, PPT is expected to become more costly, particularly when medication cost exceeds 0.75$ a day. When using an expensive medication (>3 $/day), preventive drug treatment becomes more expensive than CBBT after the first year. Long-term, and within year 1, MCBT was found to be the least costly approach to migraine prevention. CONCLUSIONS: Through year 1 of treatment, inexpensive prophylactic medications (such as generically available beta-blocker or tricyclic antidepressant medications) and behavioral interventions utilizing limited delivery formats (MCBT) are the least costly of the empirically validated interventions. This analysis suggests that, relative to pharmacologic options, limited format behavioral interventions are cost-competitive in the early phases of treatment and become more cost-efficient as the years of treatment accrue.