Efficacy of oral and non-oral migraine prophylactic treatment on self-reported subjective sleep quality in migraine patients with sleep problems: A review and meta-analysis.

This study aims to investigate the effects of oral and non-oral migraine prophylaxis on subjective sleep quality in migraine patients with sleep problems. A bidirectional relationship between migraine and sleep is presumed, although this relationship is not fully clarified. Possibly, prophylactic treatment of migraine aiming at a reduction of migraine attack frequency can also positively affect the quality of sleep for patients with migraine with sleep problems. PubMed, Cochrane, Embase and CINAHL databases were searched in March 2022 for studies evaluating prophylactic treatment of migraine and the impact on perceived sleep quality (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index or Insomnia Severity Index). A systematic review using the McMaster Tool and a random-effects meta-analysis (effect size Cohen's d) were conducted. Seven studies were identified, including 989 participants, of which 844/989 (85.3%) female, with a mean (SD) age of 41.3 (12.1) years. In 6/7 (85.7%) studies, monthly migraine days improved (p < 0.002). Five out of six (83.3%) studies presented a relevant improvement in quality of sleep (p < 0.05), and one study reported a clinically meaningful improvement in the treatment group (Insomnia Severity Index change >7, in >50% of participants). The meta-analysis showed a large effect size of 1.09 (95% confidence interval 0.57-1.62; overall p < 0.001; Cochran's Q < 0.0001) for migraine prophylaxis on improving sleep quality. In conclusion, prophylactic migraine treatment improves sleep quality in patients with migraine and sleep problems, as measured with self-reported questionnaires Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index and Insomnia Severity Index. Unfortunately, some included studies used prophylactic treatment that is not in current (international) guidelines. The evidence for this improvement in quality of sleep is strong, and seems a generic effect of migraine prophylaxis.

[Medication-overuse headache]. / Hoofdpijn door overgebruik van pijnmedicatie.

- Medication-overuse headache is a highly prevalent disorder with a major impact on the quality of life.- Medication-overuse headache is defined as headache on ≥ 15 days per month with overuse of acute headache medication for ≥ 3 months. We talk about overuse in case of intake of simple analgesics on ≥ 15 days per month or triptans or combinations of analgesics on ≥ 10 days per month.- The underlying type of headache is usually migraine or tension-type headache.- One of the possible underlying mechanisms of medication-overuse headache is changed sensitivity as a consequence of central sensitisation.- The initial treatment is detoxification of the headache medication. The preferred detoxification method is outpatient, abrupt withdrawal of all acute-headache medication and caffeine-containing products. Essential for successful detoxification is education about the reasons for detoxification, the expected course and the subsequent treatment.

Triptan overuse in the Dutch general population: a nationwide pharmaco-epidemiology database analysis in 6.7 million people.

INTRODUCTION: A population-based observational study was used to assess the prevalence, demographics, risk factors, and costs of triptan overuse, defined as more than 30 (International Headache Society criteria) or 54 (stringent criteria) defined daily doses per 3 months. METHODS: Analysis of the Dutch Health Care Insurance Board Database for 2005, which included prescriptions for 6.7 million people (46% of the total Dutch population). RESULTS: Triptans were used by 85,172 (1.3%) people; of these, 8,844 (10.4%; 95% CI 10.2-10.6) were overusers by International Headache Society and 2,787 (3.3%; 95% CI 3.2-3.4) were overusers by stringent criteria. The triptan-specific odds ratios for the rate of International Headache Society overuse compared with sumatriptan were: 0.26 (95% CI 0.19-0.36) for frovatriptan; 0.34 (95% CI 0.32-0.37) for rizatriptan; 0.76 95% CI 0.68-0.85) for naratriptan; 0.86 (95% CI 0.72-1.02) for eletriptan; 0.97 (95% CI 0.88-1.06) for zolmitriptan; and 1.49 (95% CI 1.31-1.72) for almotriptan. Costs for overuse were 29.7 million euros; for the International Headache Society criteria this was 46% of total costs and for stringent criteria it was 23%. DISCUSSION: In the Dutch general population, 1.3% used a triptan in 2005, of which 10.3% were overusers and accounted for half of the total costs of triptans. Users of frovatriptan, rizatriptan and naratriptan had a lower level of overuse.

Chronic frequent headache in the general population: prevalence and associated factors.

We studied the prevalence and short-term natural course of chronic frequent headache (CFH) in the general population and identified risk factors. In the Netherlands everyone is registered at a single general practice. We sent questionnaires to all persons (n = 21 440) aged 25-55 years, registered at 16 general practices. We compared the characteristics of 177 participants with CFH (>14 headache days/month for >3 months) with 141 participants with infrequent headache (1-4 days/month) and 526 without headache (<1 day/month). The prevalence of CFH was 3.7% [95% confidence interval (CI) 3.4, 4.0]. In 5 months, 12% showed a clinically relevant decrease to <7 days/month. In both headache groups 70% were women vs. 41% in the group without headache. Compared with the group with infrequent headache, the CFH group had more subjects with low educational level [35% vs. 11%; odds ratio (OR) 4.3, 95% CI 2.3, 7.8], medication overuse (62% vs. 3%; OR 38.4, 95% CI 13.8, 106.9), sleeping problems (44% vs. 8%; OR 8.1, 95% CI 3.6, 18.1), a history of head/neck trauma (36% vs. 14%; OR 4.0, 95% CI 2.2, 7.1), high scores on the General Health Questionnaire (62% vs. 34%; OR 2.7, 95% CI 1.3, 3.6) and more smokers (45% vs. 19%; OR 3.1, 95% CI 1.9, 5.3). We conclude that headache frequency fluctuates. CFH is common and associated with overuse of analgesics, psychopathology, smoking, sleeping problems, a history of head/neck trauma and low educational level. Female sex is a risk factor for headache, not for chronification of headache.

Chronic frequent headache in the general population: comorbidity and quality of life.

We studied the nature and extent of comorbidity of chronic frequent headache (CFH) in the general population and the influence of CFH and comorbidity on quality of life. Subjects with CFH (headache on >14 days/month) were identified in a general health survey. We sent a second questionnaire including questions on comorbidity and quality of life to subjects with CFH and subjects with infrequent headache (IH) (1-4 days/month). We recoded comorbidity by using the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale (CIRS) and measured quality of life with the RAND-36, a Dutch version of Short Form-36. CFH subjects (n = 176) had higher comorbidity scores than the IH subjects (n = 141). Mean CIRS scores were 2.94 for CFH and 1.55 for IH [mean difference 1.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91, 1.89]. The mean number of categories selected was 1.92 in CFH and 1.10 in IH (mean difference 0.82, 95% CI 0.54, 1.11). Fifty percent of CFH subjects had a comorbidity severity level of at least 2, indicating disorders requiring daily medication, compared with 28% of IH subjects (mean difference 22%, 95% CI 12, 33). CFH subjects had more musculoskeletal, gastrointestinal, psychiatric and endocrine/breast pathology than IH subjects. Quality of life in CFH subjects was lower than that of IH subjects in all domains of the RAND-36. Both headache frequency and CIRS score had a negative influence on all domains. We conclude that patients with CFH have more comorbid disorders than patients with infrequent headaches. Many CFH patients have a comorbid chronic condition requiring daily medication. Both high headache frequency and comorbidity contribute to the low quality of life in these patients.

[Still no proof of the efficacy of acupuncture in the prevention of migraine]. / Acupunctuur bij de profylactische behandeling van migraine; voorlopig geen bewijs van effectiviteit.

Besides pharmacological treatments for migraine, alternative non-pharmacological treatment strategies might be effective. In 2001, a Cochrane review concluded that acupuncture might be effective in migraine. The authors of a recent large trial also claimed that acupuncture might reduce the frequency of migraine attacks. However, this study failed to provide a clear answer due to serious methodological short-comings, for example with respect to randomisation and the clinical relevance of the main findings. In another recent, large, randomised controlled trial, the efficacy of acupuncture was not significantly different from that of the sham procedure. In conclusion, acupuncture is probably not effective in the prevention of migraine.