[Specialised headache units, a feasible alternative in Spain]. / Unidades especializadas de cefalea, una alternativa viable en España.

INTRODUCTION: Visits due to headaches are the most frequent cause of demand for neurological treatment in primary care and neurology services. Headache units improve the quality of care, reduce waiting lists, facilitate access to new treatments of proven efficacy and optimise healthcare expenditure. However, these units have not been implemented on a widespread basis in Spain due to the relatively low importance attributed to the condition and also the assumption that such units have a high cost. AIM: To define the structure and minimum requirements of a headache unit with the intention of contributing to their expansion in hospitals in Spain. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We conducted a consensus study among professionals after reviewing the literature on the structure, functions and resources required by a headache unit designed to serve an area with 350,000 inhabitants. RESULTS: Eight publications were taken as a reference for identifying the minimum resources needed for a headache unit. The panel of experts was made up of 12 professionals from different specialties. The main resource required to be able to implement these units is the professional staff (both supervisory and technical), which can mean an additional cost for the first year of around 107,287.19 euros. CONCLUSIONS: If we bear in mind the direct and indirect costs due to losses in labour productivity per patient and compare them with the estimated costs involved in implementing these units and their expected results, everything points to the need for headache units to become generalised in Spain.

TITLE: Unidades especializadas de cefalea, una alternativa viable en España.Introducción. Las consultas por cefalea son el motivo más frecuente de demanda de atención de causa neurológica en la atención primaria y en los servicios de neurología. Las unidades de cefalea mejoran la calidad asistencial, reducen las listas de espera, facilitan el acceso a nuevos tratamientos de eficacia contrastada y optimizan el gasto sanitario. No obstante, la implantación de estas unidades no está extendida en España debido a la relativa importancia atribuida a la patología y a la suposición de que su coste es elevado. Objetivo. Definir la estructura y los requerimientos mínimos de una unidad de cefalea con la intención de contribuir a su extensión en los hospitales de España. Sujetos y métodos. Estudio de consenso entre profesionales tras la revisión de la bibliografía sobre la estructura, las funciones y los recursos de una unidad de cefalea para un área de 350.000 habitantes. Resultados. Se tomaron como referencia ocho publicaciones para la identificación de recursos mínimos necesarios de una unidad de cefalea. El panel de expertos estuvo integrado por 12 profesionales de diferentes especialidades. El principal recurso para la implementación de estas unidades son profesionales (superiores y técnicos), lo que puede suponer un coste adicional para el primer año de alrededor de 107.287,19 euros. Conclusiones. Si consideramos los costes directos e indirectos debidos a las pérdidas por productividad laboral por paciente y los comparamos con los costes estimados de implantación de estas unidades y su expectativa de resultados, todo apunta a que es necesaria la generalización de unidades de cefalea en España.

Low-value care practice in headache: a Spanish mixed methods research study.

BACKGROUND: Headache is one of the most prevalent diseases. The Global Burden of Disease Study ranks it as the seventh most common disease overall and the second largest neurological cause of disability in the world. The "Do Not Do" recommendations are a strategy for increasing the quality of care and reducing the cost of care for headache. This study aimed to identify specific low-value practices in headache care, determine their frequency, and estimate the cost overrun that they represent, in order to establish "Do not Do" recommendations specifically for headache by consensus and according to scientific evidence. METHODS: This was a mixed methods research study that combined qualitative consensus-building techniques, involving a multidisciplinary panel of experts to define the "Do Not Do" recommendations in headache care, and a retrospective observational study with review of a randomized set of patient records from the past 6 months in four hospitals, to quantify the frequency of these "Do Not Do" practices. We calculated the sum of direct costs of medical consultations, medicines, and unnecessary diagnostic tests. RESULTS: Seven "Do Not Do" recommendations were established for headache. In total, 3507 medical records were randomly reviewed. Low-value practices had a highly variable occurrence, depending on the hospital and type of headache. Overall, 34.1% of low-value practices were related to treatment, 21% were related to overuse of imaging in consultation, and 19% were related to emergency care. The estimated cost of low-value practices in the four hospitals was 203,520.47 euros per 1000 patients. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified low-value headache practices that need to be eradicated and provided data on their frequency and cost overruns.

Analysis of the management and costs of headache disorders in Spain during the period 2011-2016: a retrospective multicentre observational study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the number and characteristics of the Spanish population affected by headache disorders and the direct medical cost that these patients represent for the healthcare system. DESIGN: A retrospective multicentre observational study. SETTING: Records from all patients admitted with headache in primary and secondary care centres in Spain between 2011 and 2016 that were registered in a Spanish claims database were included in the analysis. Direct medical costs were calculated using the standardised average expenses of medical procedures determined by the Spanish Ministry of Health. RESULTS: Data extraction claimed primary care records from 636 722 patients and secondary care records from 30 077 patients. Women represented 63% and 65% of all patients with headache in primary and secondary care respectively, with the exception of cluster headaches, a group with 60% of male patients. No large shifts were observed over time in patients' profile; contrarily, the number of cases per 10 000 patients attended in primary care increased 2-folds between 2011 and 2016 for migraine and 1.85-folds for other headaches. Migraine was the cause for 28% of primary care consultations and 50% of secondary care admissions, and it was responsible for the largest portion of healthcare costs in 2016, a total amount of € 7 302 718. The estimated annual direct medical cost of headache disorders was € 10 716 086. CONCLUSIONS: Migraine was responsible for half of the secondary care admissions linked to headache disorders. The raise detected in the number of cases registered in primary care is likely to impact the direct medical costs associated to these disorders causing an increase in the total burden they represent for the Spanish National Healthcare System.

Annual indirect costs secondary to headache disability in Brazil.

BACKGROUND: Disability imposed by headache disorders constitutes an expressive economic burden, mostly from indirect costs due to absenteeism and presenteeism. OBJECTIVE: To estimate indirect costs from absenteeism and presenteeism due to headache disorders in Brazil. METHODS: In a secondary, descriptive analysis of two nationwide databases, we estimated indirect costs based on headache-related disability and socioeconomic data. RESULTS: In the first database analyzed (n = 3838), 12.8% of the employed population with headache disorders missed at least 1 day of work in the last 3 months (mean, 95% CI = 4.2 days [3.7-4.6]). Based on the prevalence of headache disorders, days lost due to headaches and income data, R$ 40.4 billion (Int$ 20 billion) are lost due to headache-related absenteeism annually. For presenteeism, 26.2% of the employed population with headache disorders worked at least 1 day in the last 3 months with 50% reduced productivity (mean, 95% CI = 5.7 days [5.3-6.2]), amounting to R$ 27.3 billion (Int$ 13.5 billion) of financial loss annually. In the other database analysed (n = 205,546), 14,052 (6.8%) respondents missed work/school or household duties in the past 2 weeks due to some disease. Of these, 4.7% attributed their days lost to headaches disorders in the economically active population, which ranked 4th as main cause of days lost due to disease, among 23 common diseases. CONCLUSIONS: The economic burden of headache disorders in Brazil, mostly due to migraine (55.4%), may cost up to R$ 67.6 billion (Int$ 33.5 billion) annually, and headache disorders represent a leading cause of absenteeism due to disease.

Economic Impact of Headache and Psychiatric Comorbidities on Healthcare Expenditures Among Children in the United States: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the annual healthcare expenditures associated with childhood headache in the United States, and to evaluate whether psychiatric comorbidities increase the impact of headache on expenditures. BACKGROUND: Headache is prevalent in childhood and co-occurs with anxiety disorders, depressive disorders, and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), which may increase cost of illness. METHODS: We conducted a secondary data analysis using a nationally representative sample of 34,633 children ages 2-17 from the 2012-2015 Medical Expenditure Panel Surveys (MEPS), of which 779 (weighted 2.6%) were identified as having headache based on health service use associated with headache. Using a comprehensive cost-of-illness approach, we assessed the incremental expenditures associated with headache and determined excess expenditures associated with psychiatric comorbidities using standard adjusted 2-part expenditure models. RESULTS: Annual total healthcare expenditures were estimated to be 24.3% higher, 95% CI [1,55], in our headache group ($3036, 95% CI [2374,3699] vs $2350, 95% CI [2140,2559]). Total national expenditures associated with pediatric headache in the United States were estimated at $1.1 billion annually, 95% CI [.04, 2.2 billion]. Depression and ADHD were associated with higher incremental expenditures for the headache group (depression: $1815, 95% CI[676,2953] vs $1409, 95% CI[697,2112]; ADHD: $4742, 95% CI[1659,7825] vs $2935, 95% CI[1977,3894]); however, interactions between psychiatric comorbidities and headache did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSION: Youth with headache exert a considerable economic burden on families, healthcare systems, and society. Due to the limitations in methods used to classify youth with headache in MEPS, our findings may underestimate the true prevalence and cost of pediatric headache in the United States. Further research with larger sample sizes is needed to understand the impact of psychiatric comorbidities on healthcare expenditures in this population.

The prevalence of headache in German pupils of different ages and school types.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Headache in pupils is underestimated and has a negative impact on learning and life. The aim of this study was to investigate headache prevalence and its collateral effects, in pupils of different ages and school types in a German city. METHODS: Anonymized questionnaires were distributed to 5419 pupils attending primary and secondary schools. Demographics, headache frequency, analgesic use, school absence and, for secondary school children, data on lifestyle were collected. RESULTS: The questionnaire was returned by 2706 children (49%), 1362 (50.3%) girls, 1344 (49.7%) boys. Of these, 36.6% indicated a frequency of 1, and 31.5% a frequency of ≥ 2 headache days per month within the last 3 months. Headache prevalence increased with school grade, age and secondary school type: 63.6%, 67.2% and 79.5% for primary school children, pupils attending 8-year and pupils attending 6-year secondary schools, respectively. With secondary school level I certificates, pupils are prepared for general professional training in 6 years. Secondary school level II results, after 8 years of training, in university entrance level II certificates, which are the precondition for university studies. Girls reported significantly more headache than boys (73% vs. 63.1%). A significant relationship has been observed between headache frequency and school absence and between headache intensity and headache frequency. Of pupils with headache at least twice a month, 48.1% reported analgesic intake. Ibuprofen (49.1%) and paracetamol (32.8%) were the most frequently used analgesics. Of those pupils with headache ≥ 2 days/month, 68.3% did not have a specific headache diagnosis. Concomitant diseases and regular drug intake, analgesic intake for another reason than headache, caffeine consumption and lack of participation in sports were positively correlated with headache. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of pupils suffer from headache at least once a month. Since frequent headache results in educational and social limitations, pupils at risk should be identified and referred to headache education programs. Efforts are needed to improve the management of juvenile headache patients.

Neuroimaging of Adults with Headache: Appropriateness, Utilization, and an Economical Overview.

One of the most common reasons that a patient seeks out a health care provider for a neuroscience-related issue is headache. Not all patients can, or probably should, be imaged with headache. We must use an approach that attends to scientific evidence, accepted guidelines, and available resources. This approach should focus on quality, safety, appropriateness, and utilization. This article reviews and discusses the consideration of imaging adult patients with headache.

Condiciones sociodemográficas, laborales y ambientales asociadas a la presencia de cefalea en trabajadores informales venteros, Medellín 2016 / Sociodemographic, occupational and environmental conditions associated with the presence of headache in informal workers (street vendors), Medellin 2016

Se exploraron factores sociodemográficos, laborales y ambientales asociados a la cefalea en 686 trabajadores del sector informal de la economía en el centro de Medellín, Colombia a través de un estudio descriptivo transversal con intención analítica, fuentes primarias de información, y aplicación de encuesta asistida que incluyó el auto reporte de cefalea. La prevalencia de cefalea fue del 47,8%, se asoció a mayor prevalencia de cefalea la condición biológica, el sentir calor o frío exagerado en el puesto de trabajo y considerar que la contaminación del aire afectaba su labor como trabajadores informales. Ser mujer es una condición que explica mayor prevalencia de cefalea. Las condiciones sociodemográficas, laborales y ambientales, pueden aportar a una mayor vulnerabilidad laboral de esta población trabajadora, la cual puede afectar su estado de salud, siendo la cefalea una de las dolencias que deben ser atendidas para mejorar sus condiciones de vida y de trabajo

Sociodemographic, occupational and environmental factors associated with headache were explored in 686 workers of the informal sector of the economy in the center of Medellin, Colombia, through a transversal descriptive study with analytical intention, primary sources of information, and application of assisted survey that included the headache self-report. The prevalence of headache was 47,8%. The biological condition was associated with a higher prevalence of headache, as well as the feeling of exaggerated heat or cold in the workplace and considering that air pollution affected their work as informal workers. Being a woman is a condition that explains the higher prevalence of headache. The socio-demographic, occupational and environmental conditions can contribute to a greater labor vulnerability of this working population, which can affect their health status, being the headache one of the ailments that must be addressed to improve their living and working conditions

The Global Burden of Headache.

At the turn of the century, most of the world's population lived in regions where the prevalence of headache was unknown and its impact poorly understood. Lifting The Burden (LTB), a nonprofit organization in official relations with the World Health Organization, established the Global Campaign against Headache, with the ultimate purpose of reducing the burden of headache worldwide. First, the scope and scale of this burden had to be known. LTB embarked upon a program of population-based studies in countries in all world regions in order to achieve its aim. Its studies have demonstrated a high prevalence of headache disorders, including migraine, tension-type headache, and medication-overuse headache, and their associations with impaired quality of life, substantial lost productivity, and high economic costs in every country surveyed. Informed by these, the Global Burden of Disease study ranks headache disorders as the second leading cause of years lived with disability worldwide; migraine alone is third among people aged 15 to 49 years. With interventions urgently needed to reduce these burdens throughout the world, we review the epidemiological studies conducted by LTB, examine proposed interventions to improve provision of headache care including a three-tier system of structured headache services, and consider the challenges still remaining in providing effective, efficient, and equitable headache care especially in low-income countries.

Telemedicine in a pediatric headache clinic: A prospective survey.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this prospective study was to survey our patients about their experience with our clinic's telemedicine program to better understand telemedicine's utility for families, and to improve patient satisfaction and ultimately patient care. METHODS: This was a prospective survey study of patients and their families who had a routine telemedicine follow-up visit with the University of California San Francisco Pediatric Headache Program. The survey was administered to patients and a parent(s) following their telemedicine visit. RESULTS: Fifty-one of 69 surveys (74%) were completed. All (51/51) patients and families thought that (1) telemedicine was more convenient compared to a clinic visit, (2) telemedicine caused less disruption of their daily routine, and (3) they would choose to do telemedicine again. The mean round-trip travel time from home to clinic was 6.8 hours (SD ± 8.6 hours). All participants thought telemedicine was more cost-effective than a clinic visit. Parents estimated that participating in a telemedicine visit instead of a clinic appointment saved them on average $486. CONCLUSION: This prospective, pediatric headache telemedicine study shows that telemedicine is convenient, perceived to be cost-effective, and patient-centered. Providing the option of telemedicine for routine pediatric headache follow-up visits results in high patient and family satisfaction.

Association of neurologist care with headache expenditures: A population-based, longitudinal analysis.

Objective To assess the association of neurologist ambulatory care with healthcare utilization and expenditure in headache. Methods This was a longitudinal cohort study from two-year duration panel data, pooled from 2002-2013, of adult respondents identified with diagnostic codes for headache in the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. Those with a neurologist ambulatory care visit in year one of panel participation were compared with those who did not for the change in annual aggregate direct headache-related health care costs from year one to year two of panel participation, inflated to 2015 US dollars. Results were adjusted via multiple linear regression for demographic and clinical variables, utilizing survey variables for accurate estimates and standard errors. Results Eight hundred and eighty-seven respondents were included, with 23.3% (207/887) seeing a neurologist in year one. The neurologist group had higher year-one mean headache-related expenditures ($3032 vs. $1636), but nearly equal mean year-two expenditures compared to controls ($1900 vs. $1929). Adjusted association between neurologist care and difference in mean annual expenditures from year two to year one was -$1579 (95% CI -$2468, -$690, p < 0.001). Conclusion Among headache sufferers, particularly those with higher headache-related healthcare expenditures, neurologist care is associated with a significant reduction in costs over two years.

The association of neurologists with headache health care utilization and costs.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the association of a neurologist visit with headache health care utilization and costs. METHODS: Utilizing a large privately insured health care claims database, we identified patients with an incident headache diagnosis (ICD-9 codes 339.xx, 784.0x, 306.81) with at least 5 years follow-up. Patients with a subsequent neurologist visit were matched to controls without a neurologist visit using propensity score matching, accounting for 54 potential confounders and regional variation in neurologist density. Co-primary outcomes were emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations for headache. Secondary outcomes were quality measures (abortive, prophylactic, and opioid prescriptions) and costs (total, headache-related, and non-headache-related). Generalized estimating equations assessed differences in longitudinal outcomes between cases and controls. RESULTS: We identified 28,585 cases and 57,170 controls. ED visits did not differ between cases and controls (p = 0.05). Hospitalizations were more common in cases in year 0-1 (0.2%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.2%-0.3% vs 0.01%, 95% CI 0.01%-0.02%; p < 0.01), with minimal differences in subsequent years. Costs (including non-headache-related costs) and high-quality and low-quality medication utilization were higher in cases in the first year and decreased toward control costs in subsequent years with small differences persisting over 5 years. Opioid prescriptions increased over time in both cases and controls. CONCLUSION: Compared with those without a neurologist, headache patients who visit neurologists had a transient increase in hospitalizations, but the same ED utilization. Confounding by severity is the most likely explanation given the non-headache-related cost trajectory. Claims-based risk adjustment will likely underestimate disease severity of headache patients seen by neurologists.

The Cost-Effective Evaluation of Uncomplicated Headache.

Headaches remain one of the most common reasons for patients to seek acute care. It is important to assess whether the headache meets criteria for a primary (uncomplicated) versus a secondary headache, due to an underlying condition. A thorough history and physical examination are imperative when assessing the nature of the headache and to rule out red-flag features, which are signs and symptoms of dangerous causes. This will help determine if imaging studies are warranted. Management of uncomplicated headache should include treatment of the acute headache and an action plan for reducing the frequency and severity of future headaches.

Acceptability, Feasibility, and Cost of Telemedicine for Nonacute Headaches: A Randomized Study Comparing Video and Traditional Consultations.

BACKGROUND: The feasibility of telemedicine in diagnosing and treating nonacute headaches, such as primary headaches (migraine and tension-type) and medication-overuse headaches has not been previously investigated. By eliminating the need of travel to specialists, telemedicine may offer significant time and money savings. OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to estimate the acceptance of telemedicine and investigate the feasibility and cost savings of telemedicine consultations in diagnosing and treating nonacute headaches. METHODS: From September 2012 to March 2015, nonacute headache patients from Northern Norway who were referred to neurologists through an electronic application system were consecutively screened and randomized to participate in either telemedicine or traditional specialist visits. All patients were consulted by two neurologists at the neurological department in Tromsø University Hospital. Feasibility outcomes were compared between telemedicine and traditional groups. Baseline characteristics and costs were then compared between rural and urban patients. Travel costs were calculated by using the probabilistic method of the Norwegian traveling agency: the cheapest means of public transport for each study participant. Loss of pay was calculated based on the Norwegian full-time employee's average salary: < 3.5 hours=a half day's salary, > 3.5 hours spent on travel and consultation=one day's salary. Distance and time spent on travel were estimated by using Google Maps. RESULTS: Of 557 headache patients screened, 479 were found eligible and 402 accepted telemedicine participation (83.9%, 402/479) and were included in the final analyses. Of these, 202 received traditional specialist consultations and 200 received telemedicine. All patients in the telemedicine group were satisfied with the video quality, and 198 (99%, 198/200) were satisfied with the sound quality. The baseline characteristics as well as headache diagnostics and follow-up appointments, and the investigation, advice, and prescription practices were not statistically different between the two randomized groups. In addition, telemedicine consultations were shorter than traditional visits (38.8 vs 43.7 min, P<.001). The travel cost per rural individual (292/402, 73%) was €249, and estimated lost income was €234 per visit. The travel cost in the urban area (110/402, 27%) was €6, and estimated lost income was €117 per visit. The median traveling distance for rural patients was 526 km (range 1892 km), and the median traveling time was 7.8 hours (range 27.3 hours). Rural patients had a longer waiting time than urban patients (64 vs 47 days, P=.001), and fewer women were referred from rural areas (P=.04). Rural women reported higher pain scores than urban women (P=.005). CONCLUSION: Our study shows that telemedicine is an accepted, feasible, time-saving, and cost-saving alternative to traditional specialist consultations for nonacute headaches. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02270177; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02270177 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6hmoHGo9Q).

Variations in Patterns of Utilization and Charges for the Care of Headache in North Carolina, 2000-2009: A Statewide Claims' Data Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the study was to compare patterns of utilization and charges generated by medical doctors (MDs), doctors of chiropractic (DCs), and physical therapists (PTs) for the treatment of headache in North Carolina. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of claims data from the North Carolina State Health Plan for Teachers and State Employees from 2000 to 2009. Data were extracted from Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina for the North Carolina State Health Plan using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, diagnostic codes for headache. The claims were separated by individual provider type, combination of provider types, and referral patterns. RESULTS: The majority of patients and claims were in the MD-only or MD plus referral patterns. Chiropractic patterns represented less than 10% of patients. Care patterns with single-provider types and no referrals incurred the least charges on average for headache. When care did not include referral providers or services, MD with DC care was generally less expensive than MD care with PT. However, when combined with referral care, MD care with PT was generally less expensive. Compared with MD-only care, risk-adjusted charges (available 2006-2009) for patients in the middle risk quintile were significantly less for DC-only care. CONCLUSIONS: Utilization and expenditures for headache treatment increased from 2000 to 2009 across all provider groups. MD care represented the majority of total allowed charges in this study. MD care and DC care, alone or in combination, were overall the least expensive patterns of headache care. Risk-adjusted charges were significantly less for DC-only care.

[How to convince the head of department and managing director of the importance of specialised headache clinics]. / Como convencer al jefe de servicio y al gerente de la importancia de las unidades/consultas especializadas de cefaleas.

In spite that headache is, by far, the most frequent reason for neurological consultation and that the diagnosis and treatment of some patients with headache is difficult, the number of headache clinics is scarce in our country. In this paper the main arguments which should allow us, as neurologists, to defend the necessity of implementing headache clinics are reviewed. To get this aim we should first overcome our internal reluctances, which still make headache as scarcely appreciated within our specialty. The facts that more than a quarter of consultations to our Neurology Services are due to headache, that there are more than 200 different headaches, some of them actually invalidating, and the new therapeutic options for chronic patients, such as OnabotulinumtoxinA or neuromodulation techniques, oblige us to introduce specialised headache attendance in our current neurological offer. Even though there are no definite data, available results indicate that headache clinics are efficient in patients with chronic headaches, not only in terms of health benefit but also from an economical point of view.

TITLE: Como convencer al jefe de servicio y al gerente de la importancia de las unidades/consultas especializadas de cefaleas.A pesar de que la cefalea es, con diferencia, el principal motivo neurologico de consulta, y de la complejidad diagnostica y terapeutica de algunos pacientes, el numero de consultas monograficas de cefalea (CC) y de unidades de cefalea (UC) es muy reducido en nuestro pais. En este articulo pasaremos revista a los principales argumentos que nos permitan, como neurologos, defender la necesidad de la implementacion de una CC/UC, dependiendo de la poblacion que se debe atender, en todos nuestros servicios de neurologia. Para ello deberemos, en primer lugar, vencer las reticencias internas, que hacen que la cefalea sea aun poco apreciada y atractiva dentro de nuestra especialidad. El hecho de que la cefalea justifique mas de un cuarto de las consultas a un servicio de neurologia estandar de nuestro pais y de que existan mas de 200 cefaleas diferentes, algunas de ellas realmente invalidantes, y las nuevas opciones de tratamiento para pacientes cronicos, como la OnabotulinumtoxinA para la migraña cronica o las tecnicas de neuromodulacion, obligan a introducir dentro de nuestras carteras de servicios la asistencia especializada en cefaleas. Aunque no disponemos de datos incontrovertibles, existen ya datos suficientes en la literatura que indican que esta atencion es eficiente en pacientes con cefaleas cronicas no solo en terminos de salud, sino tambien desde el punto de vista economico.

Neuropsychiatric symptoms and expenditure on complementary and alternative medicine.

OBJECTIVE: Neuropsychiatric symptoms affect 37% of US adults. These symptoms are often refractory to standard therapies, and patients may consequently opt for complementary and alternative medicine therapies (CAM). We sought to determine the demand for CAM by those with neuropsychiatric symptoms compared to those without neuropsychiatric symptoms as measured by out-of-pocket expenditure. METHOD: We compared CAM expenditure between US adults with and without neuropsychiatric symptoms (n = 23,393) using the 2007 National Health Interview Survey. Symptoms included depression, anxiety, insomnia, attention deficits, headaches, excessive sleepiness, and memory loss. CAM was defined per guidelines from the National Institutes of Health as mind-body therapies, biological therapies, manipulation therapies, or alternative medical systems. Expenditure on CAM by those without neuropsychiatric symptoms was compared to those with neuropsychiatric symptoms. RESULTS: Of the adults surveyed, 37% had ≥ 1 neuropsychiatric symptom and spent $14.8 billion out-of-pocket on CAM. Those with ≥ 1 neuropsychiatric symptom were more likely than those without neuropsychiatric symptoms to spend on CAM (27.4% vs 20.3%, P < .001). Likelihood to spend on CAM increased with number of symptoms (27.2% with ≥ 3 symptoms, P < .001). After adjustment was made for confounders using logistic regression, those with ≥ 1 neuropsychiatric symptom remained more likely to spend on CAM (odds ratio [OR] = 1.34; 95% CI, 1.22-1.48), and the likelihood increased to 1.55 (95% CI, 1.34-1.79) for ≥ 3 symptoms. Anxiety (OR = 1.40 [95% CI, 1.22-1.60]) and excessive sleepiness (OR = 1.36 [95% CI, 1.21-1.54]) were the most closely associated with CAM expenditure. CONCLUSIONS: Those with ≥ 1 neuropsychiatric symptom had disproportionately higher demand for CAM than those without symptoms. Research regarding safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of CAM is limited; therefore, future research should evaluate these issues given the tremendous demand for these treatments.

Headache yesterday in Russia: its prevalence and impact, and their application in estimating the national burden attributable to headache disorders.

BACKGROUND: Evaluation of the prevalence and impact of headache on the preceding day ("headache yesterday"; HY) is a new approach, allowing more precise estimation of headache-attributed burden without recall error. The aim of the study was to estimate the national burden attributable to headache disorders in Russia by applying measures of prevalence of HY and its impact on productivity and daily activities in the general population. METHODS: We interviewed a representative population-based sample face-to-face by visiting randomly selected households throughout Russia. We randomly selected one adult aged 18-65 years from each. We followed a structured questionnaire including diagnostic questions, enquiry into occurrence of HY and various aspects of attributed burden. RESULTS: Participation rate was 74.3%. One in seven participants (14.5%; men 9.1%: women 19.3%) reported HY. Approximately half of these had one of the subtypes of headache occurring on ≥15 days/month; the remainder had episodic migraine or tension-type headache almost equally. Mean duration of headache was 6.0 ± 4.4 hours. In 88.3% headache intensity was moderate or severe (mean 2.1 on a scale 1-3) and in 73.9% HY impaired daily activity. Loss of productivity at work due to headache totalled 2.6 million person-years/year, or 4.0% of workforce capacity. This estimate exceeded by 70% a previous estimate from the same survey based on recall over the preceding 3 months. There was greater impact on other daily activities. CONCLUSION: Recall-error-free estimation shows lost productivity every day due to headache in the Russian population is enormously high. Measures to redress these losses - effective structured health-care services supported by educational programmes - should be seen as a public-health priority while almost certainly being cost-saving.