Minimal important difference of the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS): Longitudinal data from the DMKG Headache Registry.

BACKGROUND: The Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) is widely used. However, there are limited data on how much a reduction in the MIDAS score indicates a change that matters to the patient. METHODS: Data from the DMKG (i.e. German Migraine and Headache Society) Headache Registry were used to determine the minimal important difference (MID) of the MIDAS, using the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) as anchor and applying average change and receiver operating characteristic curve methods. RESULTS: In total, 1218 adult migraine patients (85.6% female, 40.2 ± 12.8 years, baseline MIDAS 44.2 ± 47.4, follow-up MIDAS 36.5 ± 45.3) were included. For patients with baseline MIDAS >20 (MIDAS grade IV, n = 757), different methods using PGIC "somewhat improved" as anchor yielded percent change MIDs of the MIDAS between -29.4% and -33.2%. For baseline MIDAS between 6 and 20 (grades II and III, n = 334), using PGIC "much improved" as anchor, difference change MIDs were between -3.5 and -4.5 points. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the above results, we estimated the MID of the MIDAS at -30% for patients with a baseline MIDAS >20, and at -4 points for those with a baseline MIDAS of 6-20, for a tertiary headache care population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The DMKG Headache Registry is registered with the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS 00021081).

German language adaptation of the Cogniphobia Scale for Headache Disorders (CS-HD) and development of a new short form (CS-HD-6).

OBJECTIVE: This study is part of the ODIN-migraine (Optimization of Diagnostic Instruments in migraine) project. It is a secondary, a priori analysis of previously collected data, and aimed to assess the psychometric properties and factor structure of the Cogniphobia Scale for Headache Disorders (CS-HD). We aimed to construct a German-language version and a short version. BACKGROUND: Cogniphobia is the fear and avoidance of cognitive exertion, which the patient believes triggers or exacerbates headache. High cogniphobia may worsen the course of a headache disorder. METHODS: The 15-item CS-HD was translated into German and back translated in a masked form by a professional translator. Modifications were discussed and carried out in an expert panel. A cross-sectional online survey including the CS-HD and further self-report questionnaires was conducted in a sample of N = 387 persons with migraine (364/387 [94.1%] female, M = 41.0 [SD = 13.0] years, migraine without aura: 152/387 [39.3%], migraine with aura: 85/387 [22.0%], and chronic migraine: 150/387 [38.8%]). RESULTS: Exploratory factor analysis resulted in two clearly interpretable factors (interictal and ictal cogniphobia). Confirmatory factor analysis yielded an acceptable to good model fit (χ2(89) = 117.87, p = 0.022, χ2/df = 1.32, RMSEA = 0.029, SRMR = 0.055, CFI = 0.996, TLI = 0.995). Item response theory-based analysis resulted in the selection of six items for the short form (CS-HD-6). Reliability was acceptable to excellent (interictal cogniphobia subscale: ω = 0.92 [CS-HD] or ω = 0.77 [CS-HD-6]; ictal cogniphobia subscale: ω = 0.77 [CS-HD] or ω = 0.73 [CS-HD-6]). The pattern of correlations with established questionnaires confirmed convergent validity of both the CS-HD and the CS-HD-6. CONCLUSION: Both the CS-HD and the CS-HD-6 have good psychometric properties and are suitable for the assessment of cogniphobia in migraine.

Correlation of effectiveness and tolerability assessments from a pharmacy-based observational study investigating the fixed-dose combination of 400 mg ibuprofen plus 100 mg caffeine for the treatment of acute headache.

Introduction: Observational studies are valuable for investigating correlations between patient-reported treatment outcomes. In this study, we report a secondary analysis of a published pharmacy-based observational (patient-centered "real-world" outcomes) study on experiences reported by patients who treated their headache with an over-the-counter analgesic. Methods: A pharmacy-based exploratory survey was conducted in German community pharmacies. Patients buying a fixed-dose analgesic combination product (400 mg ibuprofen + 100 mg caffeine; IbuCaff) to treat their headache were offered a questionnaire that contained-among others-questions about time to onset of pain relief (OPR), assessment of time to onset of pain relief (AOPR), assessment of efficacy and tolerability, and pain intensity 2 h after intake. A correlation analysis of the data was performed. Moreover, perceived treatment effects compared to other acute headache medications used in the past were collected. Results: The correlation between OPR and AOPR was high (Spearman rank correlation r = 0.594, p < 0.0001). Headache patients assessed the onset of analgesic action within 15 min as "very fast" and within 30 min as "fast". The other readouts were correlated as well [assessment of efficacy and % pain intensity difference (%PID) at 2 h: r = 0.487; OPR/AOPR and %PID at 2 h: r = 0.295/0.318; OPR/AOPR and assessment of tolerability: r = 0.206/0.397; OPR/AOPR and assessment of efficacy: r = 0.406/0.594; assessment of efficacy and assessment of tolerability: r = 0.608; p < 0.0001 for all correlations]. Compared to previous treatments, most patients (>89%) assessed the speed of analgesic action, efficacy, and tolerability of IbuCaff as equal to or better than for the previous treatment. Discussion: Headache patients assessed the onset of analgesia within 15 min as "very fast" and within 30 min as "fast". Efficacy assessments for acute headache medication appear to be highly correlated.

[Differential diagnostics of chronic eye pain from a neurological perspective-What can also lie behind it]. / Differenzialdiagnosen chronischer Augenschmerzen aus neurologischer Sicht ­ Was auch dahinterstecken kann.

Periorbital pain and pain in the eye may arise from nociceptive processes such as chronic ocular surface destruction and inflammation, from neuropathic processes or often from a combination of different mechanisms. An important differential diagnosis are primary headache disorders and other neurological diseases, for example of inflammatory origin, which trigger secondary pain. Chronic eye pain therefore requires interdisciplinary collaboration in the diagnostics and treatment.

Triptan non-response in specialized headache care: cross-sectional data from the DMKG Headache Registry.

BACKGROUND: Triptans are effective for many migraine patients, but some do not experience adequate efficacy and tolerability. The European Headache Federation (EHF) has proposed that patients with lack of efficacy and/or tolerability of ≥ 2 triptans ('triptan resistance') could be considered eligible for treatment with the novel medications from the ditan and gepant groups. There is little data on the frequency of 'triptan resistance'. METHODS: We used patient self-report data from the German Migraine and Headache Society (DMKG) Headache Registry to assess triptan response and triptan efficacy and/or tolerability failure. RESULTS: A total of 2284 adult migraine patients (females: 85.4%, age: 39.4 ± 12.8 years) were included. 42.5% (n = 970) had failed ≥ 1 triptan, 13.1% (n = 300) had failed ≥ 2 triptans (meeting the EHF definition of 'triptan resistance'), and 3.9% (n = 88) had failed ≥ 3 triptans. Compared to triptan responders (current use, no failure, n = 597), triptan non-responders had significantly more severe migraine (higher frequency (p < 0.001), intensity (p < 0.05), and disability (p < 0.001)), that further increased with the level of triptan failure. Responders rates were highest for nasal and oral zolmitriptan, oral eletriptan and subcutaneous sumatriptan. CONCLUSION: In the present setting (specialized headache care in Germany), 13.1% of the patients had failed ≥ 2 triptans. Triptan failure was associated with increased migraine severity and disability, emphasizing the importance of establishing an effective and tolerable acute migraine medication. Acute treatment optimization might include switching to one of the triptans with the highest responder rates and/or to a different acute medication class. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The DMKG Headache Registry is registered with the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS 00021081).

Current treatment options for cluster headache: limitations and the unmet need for better and specific treatments-a consensus article.

AIM: Treatment for cluster headache is currently based on a trial-and-error approach. The available preventive treatment is unspecific and based on few and small studies not adhering to modern standards. Therefore, the authors collaborated to discuss acute and preventive treatment in cluster headache, addressing the unmet need of safe and tolerable preventive medication from the perspectives of people with cluster headache and society, headache specialist and cardiologist. FINDINGS: The impact of cluster headache on personal life is substantial. Mean annual direct and indirect costs of cluster headache are more than 11,000 Euros per patient. For acute treatment, the main problems are treatment response, availability, costs and, for triptans, contraindications and the maximum use allowed. Intermediate treatment with steroids and greater occipital nerve blocks are effective but cannot be used continuously. Preventive treatment is sparsely studied and overall limited by relatively low efficacy and side effects. Neurostimulation is a relevant option for treatment-refractory chronic patients. From a cardiologist's perspective use of verapamil and triptans may be worrisome and regular follow-up is essential when using verapamil and lithium. CONCLUSION: We find that there is a great and unmet need to pursue novel and targeted preventive modalities to suppress the horrific pain attacks for people with cluster headache.

[Complementary and supplementary procedures in the treatment of headache]. / Komplementäre und ergänzende Verfahren in der Kopfschmerztherapie.

In Germany, headache is one of the illnesses that most frequently leads to health impairments and to consultation with physicians. Even in children, headache is often associated with restricted activities of daily life. Nevertheless, the level of care for headache disorders is disproportionate to the medical needs. As a result, patients regularly use complementary and supportive therapeutic procedures. This review shows the procedures currently used for primary headache in childhood and adulthood, the methodological approaches and existing scientific evidence. The safety of the therapeutic options is also classified. These methods include physiotherapy, neural therapy, acupuncture, homeopathy, phytotherapy and the intake of dietary supplements. For children and adolescents with headaches, there are studies in the field of dietary supplements for coenzyme Q10, riboflavin, magnesium and vitamin D, which indicate specific effects in the reduction of headaches.

Therapeutic Exercise Parameters, Considerations, and Recommendations for Migraine Treatment: An International Delphi Study.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to reach consensus about the best exercise prescription parameters, the most relevant considerations, and other recommendations that could be useful for prescribing exercise to patients with migraine. METHODS: This was an international study conducted between April 9, 2022 and June 30, 2022. An expert panel of health care and exercise professionals was assembled, and a 3-round Delphi survey was performed. Consensus was reached for each item if an Aiken V Validity Index ≥ 0.7 was obtained. RESULTS: The study included 14 experts who reached consensus on 42 items by the third round. The most approved prescription parameters were 30 to 60 minutes of exercise per session, 3 days per week of moderate-intensity continuous aerobic exercise, and relaxation and breathing exercises for 5 to 20 minutes every day. When considering an exercise prescription, initial exercise supervision should progress to patient self-regulation; catastrophizing, fear-avoidance beliefs, headache-related disability, anxiety, depression, physical activity baseline level, and self-efficacy could influence the patients' exercise participation and efficacy; and gradual exposure to exercise could help improve these psychological variables and increase exercise efficacy. Yoga and concurrent exercise were also included as recommended interventions. CONCLUSION: From the experts in the study, exercise prescriptions should be adapted to patients with migraine considering different exercise modalities, such as moderate-intensity aerobic exercise, relaxation, yoga, and concurrent exercise, based on the patients' preferences and psychological considerations, level of physical activity, and possible adverse effects. IMPACT: The consensus reached by the experts can help prescribe exercise accurately to patients with migraine. Offering various exercise modalities can improve exercise participation in this population. The evaluation of the patients' psychological and physical status can also facilitate the adaptation of the exercise prescription to their abilities and diminish the risk of adverse events.

Behavioral treatment for migraine prophylaxis in adults: Moderator analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: While growing evidence suggests the efficacy of various behavioral approaches to the preventive treatment of migraine, it remains largely unclear which behavioral interventions are indicated for which type of patient. This exploratory study aimed to identify moderators for the outcome between migraine-specific cognitive-behavioral therapy and relaxation training. METHODS: In this secondary analysis of an open-label randomized controlled trial, the data of N = 77 adults (completer sample) with migraine (mean age = 47.4, SD = 12.2, 88% female), who were allocated to either migraine-specific cognitive-behavioral therapy or relaxation training, was examined. Outcome was the frequency of headache days at the 12-month follow-up. We analyzed baseline demographic or clinical characteristics and headache-specific variables (disability, emotional distress, trigger sensitivity and avoidance, pain acceptance, self-efficacy) as candidate moderators. RESULTS: Higher headache-related disability (assessed via the Headache Impact Test, HIT-6, B = -0.41 [95% CI: -0.85 to -0.10], p = .047), higher anxiety (assessed via the subscale Anxiety of the Depression, Anxiety and Stress scales, DASS-A, B = -0.66 [95% CI: -1.27 to -0.02], p = .056), and the presence of a comorbid mental disorder (B = -4.98, [95% CI: -9.42 to -0.29], p = .053), moderated the outcome in favor of migraine-specific cognitive-behavioral therapy. CONCLUSION: Our findings contribute to an individualized treatment selection and suggest that preference for complex behavioral treatment (migraine-specific cognitive-behavioral therapy) should be given to patients with high headache-related disability, increased anxiety, or a comorbid mental disorder.Study Registration: Original study registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (https://drks.de/search/de; DRKS-ID: DRKS00011111).

What do patients' efficacy and tolerability ratings of acute migraine medication tell us? Cross-sectional data from the DMKG Headache Registry.

BACKGROUND: Most migraine patients need an effective acute medication. Real-world data can provide important information on the performance of acute migraine medication in clinical practice. METHODS: We used data from the German Migraine and Headache Society Headache Registry, where patients rate efficacy and tolerability of and satisfaction with each of their acute headache medications. RESULTS: A total of 1756 adult migraine patients (females: 85%, age: 39.5 ± 12.8 years, headache days per month: 13.5 ± 8.1) were included. Of these, 93% used acute medication, most frequently triptans (59.3%) and/or non-opioid analgesics (56.4%), and 58.5% rated efficacy as good or very good. This was more frequent for triptans (75.4%) than for non-opioid analgesics (43.6%, p < 0.001). Among non-opioid analgesics, naproxen was rated most effective (61.9% very good or good, p < 0.001 compared to ibuprofen, acetylsalicylic acid and paracetamol). Patient-rated efficacy significantly declined with higher headache frequencies (p < 0.001), and this effect remained significant after omitting patients overusing acute medication. CONCLUSION: In the present population recruited at specialized headache centers, patients rated triptans as more effective than non-opioid analgesics, naproxen as more effective than ibuprofen, and acute medication efficacy decreased with increasing headache frequency.Trial registration: The German Migraine and Headache Society Headache Registry is registered with the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS 00021081).

Real-world effectiveness of fremanezumab in patients with migraine switching from another mAb targeting the CGRP pathway: a subgroup analysis of the Finesse Study.

BACKGROUND: Monoclonal antibodies targeting the CGRP pathway are effective and safe for prophylactic treatment of episodic (EM) and chronic migraine (CM). In case of treatment failure of a CGRP pathway targeting mAb, physician has to decide whether using another anti-CGRP pathway mAb is useful. This interim analysis of Finesse Study evaluates effectiveness of the anti-CGRP mAb fremanezumab in patients with a history of other prior anti-CGRP pathway mAb treatments (switch patients). METHODS: FINESSE, a non-interventional, prospective, multicentre, two-country (Germany-Austria) study observing migraine patients receiving fremanezumab in clinical routine. This subgroup analysis presents data on documented effectiveness over 3 months after the first dose of fremanezumab in switch patients. Effectiveness was evaluated based on reduction in average number of migraine days per month (MMDs), MIDAS and HIT-6 scores changes as well as in number of monthly days with acute migraine medication use. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-three out of 867 patients with a history of anti-CGRP pathway mAb treatment prior to initiation of fremanezumab were analysed. Switch to fremanezumab led to ≥ 50% MMD reduction in 42.8% of migraine patients, with higher response rate in EM (48.0%) than in CM patients (36.5%). A ≥ 30% MMD reduction was achieved by 58.7% in CM patients. After three months, monthly number of migraine days decreased by 6.4 ± 5.87 (baseline: 13.6 ± 6.5; p < 0.0001) in all patients, 5.2 ± 4.04 in EM and 7.7 ± 7.45 in CM patients. MIDAS scores decreased from 73.3 ± 56.8 (baseline) to 50.3 ± 52.9 (after 3 months; p = 0.0014), HIT-6 scores decreased from 65.9 ± 5.0 to 60.9 ± 7.2 (p < 0.0001). Concomitant use of acute migraine medication had decreased from 9.7 ± 4.98 (baseline) to 4.9 ± 3.66 (3 months) (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that about 42.8% of anti-CGRP pathway mAb-non-responder benefit from switching to fremanezumab. These results suggest that switching to fremanezumab may be a promising option for patients experiencing poor tolerability or inadequate efficacy with prior other anti-CGRP pathway mAb use. TRIAL REGISTRATION: FINESSE Study is registered on the European Network of Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance (EUPAS44606).

[Drug therapy of the acute migraine attack and prophylaxis of migraine]. / Medikamentöse Therapie der akuten Migräneattacke und Prophylaxe der Migräne.

Migraine has a prevalence of 10 % in Germany, making it the most common neurological disorder. Migraine is a prevalent disorder not only for neurologist, it's an everyday topic for general physicians and internal medicine as well. Acute migraine attacks are treated with analgesics or triptans. In case of frequent migraine attacks, there is an indication for medicinal and non-pharmacological migraine prophylaxis. Medications include beta-blockers, flunarizine, anticonvulsants, amitriptyline or, in the case of chronic migraine, onabotulinumtoxinA. If these drugs are not effective, are not tolerated or contraindicated, monoclonal antibodies against calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) or the CGRP receptor can be used.

Real-world treatment patterns and healthcare resource utilization among migraine patients: a German claims database analysis.

AIMS: Despite migraine being one of the most common neurological diseases, affected patients are often not effectively treated. This analysis describes the burden of migraine in Germany and assesses real-world treatment patterns and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) of preventive-treated migraine patients from the perspective of Statutory Health Insurance. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted using InGef Research Database claims data from 2018-2019. Migraine patients were stratified into cohorts by acute and preventive treatment status. Patients on preventive treatment were further stratified according to the type of prophylaxis received. Disease burden in preventively treated migraine patients was reported via treatment patterns, pathways, and comorbidities. HCRU was assessed through outpatient provider visits, hospitalizations, and sick leave. RESULTS: 160,164 adult migraine patients were identified, of which 55,378 (34.6%) were prescribed preventive treatment with conventional (n = 25,984, 46.9%), calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibody (CGRP mAb) (n = 613, 1.1%), or off-label therapies (n = 28,781, 52.0%). 936 (1.7%) patients received Botulinum Neurotoxin Type A (BoNTA). CGRP mAb-treated patients had a high rate of triptan prescriptions (2018: 95.5%; 2019: 88.9%), migraine-related hospitalizations (2018: 33.0%; 2019: 21.0%), and sick leave (2018: 26.8%; 2019: 22.5%). A high proportion of CGRP mAb- and BoNTA-treated patients was diagnosed with abdominal and pelvic pain (34.3% and 36.2%) and low back pain (34.1% and 35.3%). These patients also showed a high prevalence of depressive episodes (49.1% and 50.1%) and chronic pain disorders (37.5% and 32.9%). LIMITATIONS: This study focused on descriptive analyses which do not allow for assessment of causality when comparing treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Disease burden was high in patients receiving CGRP mAbs suggesting that patients treated preventively with CGRP mAbs shortly after product launch in Germany were severely affected, chronic migraine patients. The same may be true for patients receiving BoNTA who also showed an increased disease burden.

[Fear of migraine attacks: diagnosis and treatment]. / Attackenangst bei Migräne: Diagnostik und Behandlung.

In the field of headache disorders, the term "fear of attacks" refers to the fear of a headache attack occurring. Excessive fear of attacks may worsen the course of a migraine and lead to an increase in migraine activity. In the assessment of attack-related fear, a categorical (fear of attacks as a specific phobia) and a dimensional approach (measuring the extent of fear using a questionnaire) are available. The 29-item Fear of Attacks in Migraine Inventory (FAMI) is an economic self-report questionnaire for the assessment of attack-related fear, and it has good psychometric properties. The treatment of attack-related fear includes behavioral interventions as well as pharmacological therapy. Behavioral interventions have few side effects and are based on the treatment of common anxiety disorders (e.g., agoraphobia). Although the evidence of existing treatments is sparse, attack-related fear should be considered in routine care.

Headache impact and socioeconomic status: findings from a study of the German Migraine and Headache Society (DMKG).

BACKGOUND: Headache disorders are not only among the most prevalent, they are also among the most disabling disorders worldwide. This paper investigates the association between headache impact on daily life and the socioeconomic status (SES) of headache sufferers. METHODS: Data stem from a random general population sample in Germany. Respondents who reported having headache for at least a year and were aged ≥ 18 years were included in the study. A standardized questionnaire addressing headache and headache treatment was filled in during the face-to-face survey. The impact of headache on daily life was measured using the German version of the Headache Impact Test (HIT-6). RESULTS: Higher headache impact was found in low and medium SES compared to high SES. After adjustment for sociodemographics, headache-related factors (analgesic use, headache duration, headache frequency, migraine diagnosis), depressive symptoms, physical inactivity and obesity, an increased odds ratio of having higher headache impact in low SES compared to high SES was found: OR = 1.83, 95% CI [1.43, 2.23], p = .014. When the interactions "SES*obesity", "SES*depressive symptoms", and "SES*physical inactivity" were added, the results showed a significant interaction effect of "SES*obesity". Obese persons with low SES were 3.64 times more likely to have higher headache impact than non-obese persons with low SES. No significant differences between obese and non-obese persons were found in the medium and high SES groups. CONCLUSIONS: SES is an important factor that should not be neglected in headache awareness campaigns and headache treatment. Longitudinal studies are needed in the future to investigate whether lifestyle interventions, such as weight reduction, can help to reduce headache impact in people in lower SES.