Indomethacin-Responsive Headache Disorders.

OBJECTIVE: This article describes the clinical features and treatment of the indomethacin-responsive headache disorders paroxysmal hemicrania and hemicrania continua. LATEST DEVELOPMENTS: Both paroxysmal hemicrania and hemicrania continua are treated with indomethacin at the lowest clinically useful dose. It has recently become clear that some patients with either condition may respond to treatment with noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation, which can be both indomethacin sparing and, in some cases, headache controlling. Given the lifelong nature of both paroxysmal hemicrania and hemicrania continua, brain imaging with MRI is recommended when the conditions are identified, specifically including pituitary views. ESSENTIAL POINTS: Paroxysmal hemicrania and hemicrania continua are indomethacin-responsive headache disorders that offer a rewarding and unique opportunity to provide marked clinical improvement when recognized and treated appropriately. These disorders share the final common pathway of the trigeminal-autonomic reflex, with head pain and cranial autonomic features, and are differentiated pathophysiologically by the pattern of brain involvement, which can be seen using functional imaging. They have distinct differential diagnoses to which the clinician needs to remain alert.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Headache Care and Research.

ABSTRACT: This article reviews the disparities faced by individuals who experience headache disorders and discusses potential solutions to deliver equitable care. Disparities exist in the diagnosis and treatment of headache disorders with regard to race, ethnicity, sex, gender, sexual orientation, geography, and socioeconomic status. Furthermore, research in the realm of headache disparities is inadequate, and the clinical trial representation of patients from underserved communities is poor. Many barriers exist to optimizing care for underserved communities and this article addresses these barriers and presents ways to combat them.

Specific cognitive and psychological alterations are more strongly linked to increased migraine disability than chronic migraine diagnosis.

INTRODUCTION: The efficiency of The International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-3) in reflecting patients' disability has recently been questioned. This prompts consideration that clinical features beyond pain may more accurately indicate the extent of underlying brain impairment than the mere frequency of headache days. Important cognitive dysfunctions and psychological impairment have been reported in burdensome cases of migraine, and the presence of these alterations has been associated with biological changes in the nervous system. This study aimed to compare migraine-related disability within a specific patient group, classified using ICHD-3 criteria or classified based on findings from a neuropsychological evaluation using machine learning. Additionally, a complementary voxel-based morphometry (VBM) comparison was conducted to explore potential neuroanatomical differences between the resulting groups. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study included episodic and chronic migraine patients seeking consultation at a specialized headache department. A neuropsychological evaluation protocol, encompassing validated standardized tests for cognition, anxiety, depression, perceived stress, and headache-related impact (HIT-6) and disability (MIDAS), was administered. Results from this evaluation were input into an automated K-means clustering algorithm, with a predefined K=2 for comparative purposes. A supplementary Voxel-based Morphometry (VBM) evaluation was conducted to investigate neuroanatomical contrasts between the two distinct grouping configurations. RESULTS: The study involved 111 participants, with 49 having chronic migraine and 62 having episodic migraine. Seventy-four patients were assigned to cluster one, and 37 patients were assigned to cluster two. Cluster two exhibited significantly higher levels of depression, anxiety, and perceived stress, and performed worse in alternating and focalized attention tests. Differences in HIT-6 and MIDAS scores between episodic and chronic migraine patients did not reach statistical significance (HIT-6: 64.39 (±7,31) vs 62.92 (±11,61); p= 0. 42 / MIDAS: 73.63 (±68,61) vs 84.33 (±63,62); p=0.40). In contrast, patients in cluster two exhibited significantly higher HIT-6 (62.32 (±10,11) vs 66.57 (±7,21); p=0.03) and MIDAS (68.69 (±62,58) vs 97.68 (±70,31); p=0.03) scores than patients in cluster one. Furthermore, significant differences in grey matter volume between the two clusters were noted, particularly involving the precuneus, while differences between chronic and episodic migraine patients did not withstand correction for multiple comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: The classification of migraine patients based on neuropsychological characteristics demonstrates a more effective separation of groups in terms of disability compared to categorizing them based on the chronic or episodic diagnosis of ICHD-3. These findings could reveal biological changes that might explain differences in treatment responses among apparently similar patients.

Readability analysis and concept mapping of PROMs used for headache disorders.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the readability and the comprehensiveness of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) utilized in primary headache disorders literature. BACKGROUND: As the health-care landscape has evolved toward a patient-centric model, numerous PROMs have been developed to capture treatment outcomes in patients with headache disorders. For these PROMs to advance our understanding of headache disorders and their treatment impact, they must be easy to understand (i.e., reading grade level 6 or less) and comprehensively capture what matters to patients with headache. The aim of this study was to (a) assess the readability of PROMs utilized in headache disorders literature, and (b) assess the comprehensiveness of PROMs by mapping their content to a health-related quality of life framework. METHODS: In this scoping review, recently published systematic reviews were used to identify PROMs used in primary headache disorders literature. Readability analysis was performed at the level of individual items and full PROM using established readability metrics. The content of the PROMs was mapped against a health-related quality-of-life framework by two independent reviewers. RESULTS: In total, 22 PROMs (15 headache disorders related, 7 generic) were included. The median reading grade level varied between 7.1 (interquartile range [IQR] 6.3-7.8) and 12.7 (IQR 11.8-13.2). None of the PROMs were below the recommended reading grade level for patient-facing material (grade 6). Three PROMs, the Migraine-Treatment Assessment Questionnaire, the Eurolight, and the European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions 3 Level Version, were between reading grade levels 7 and 8; the remaining 19 PROMs were above reading grade level 8. In total, the PROMs included 425 items. Most items (n = 134, 32%) assessed physical function (e.g., work, activities of daily living). The remaining items assessed physical symptoms (n = 127, 30%; e.g., pain, nausea), treatment effects on symptoms (n = 65, 15%; e.g., accompanying symptoms relief, headache relief), treatment impact (n = 56, 13%; e.g., function, side effects), psychological well-being (n = 41, 10%; e.g., anger, frustration), social well-being (n = 29, 7%; e.g., missing out on social activities, relationships), psychological impact (n = 14, 3%; e.g., feeling [not] in control, feeling like a burden), and sexual well-being (n = 3, 1%; e.g., sexual activity, sexual interest). Some of the items pertained to treatment (n = 27, 6%), of which most were about treatment type and use (n = 12, 3%; e.g., medication, botulinum toxin), treatment access (n = 10, 2%; e.g., health-care utilization, cost of medication), and treatment experience (n = 9, 2%; e.g., treatment satisfaction, confidence in treatment). CONCLUSION: The PROMs used in studies of headache disorders may be challenging for some patients to understand, leading to inaccurate or missing data. Furthermore, no available PROM comprehensively measures the health-related quality-of-life impact of headache disorders or their treatment, resulting in a limited understanding of patient-reported outcomes. The development of an easy-to-understand, comprehensive, and validated headache disorders-specific PROM is warranted.

The impact of primary headaches on disability outcomes: a literature review and meta-analysis to inform future iterations of the Global Burden of Disease study.

BACKGROUND: The burden and disability associated with headaches are conceptualized and measured differently at patients' and populations' levels. At the patients' level, through patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs); at population level, through disability weights (DW) and years lived with a disability (YLDs) developed by the Global Burden of Disease Study (GBD). DW are 0-1 coefficients that address health loss and have been defined through lay descriptions. With this literature review, we aimed to provide a comprehensive analysis of disability in headache disorders, and to present a coefficient referring to patients' disability which might inform future GBD definitions of DW for headache disorders. METHODS: We searched SCOPUS and PubMed for papers published between 2015 and 2023 addressing disability in headache disorders. The selected manuscript included a reference to headache frequency and at least one PROM. A meta-analytic approach was carried out to address relevant differences for the most commonly used PROMs (by headache type, tertiles of medication intake, tertiles of females' percentage in the sample, and age). We developed a 0-1 coefficient based on the MIDAS, on the HIT-6, and on MIDAS + HIT-6 which was intended to promote future DW iterations by the GBD consortium. RESULTS: A total of 366 studies, 596 sub-samples, and more than 133,000 single patients were available, mostly referred to cases with migraine. Almost all PROMs showed the ability to differentiate disability severity across conditions and tertiles of medication intake. The indexes we developed can be used to inform future iterations of DW, in particular considering their ability to differentiate across age and tertiles of medication intake. CONCLUSIONS: Our review provides reference values for the most commonly used PROMS and a data-driven coefficient whose main added value is its ability to differentiate across tertiles of age and medication intake which underlie on one side the increased burden due to aging (it is likely connected to the increased impact of common comorbidities), and by the other side the increased burden due to medication consumption, which can be considered as a proxy for headache severity. Both elements should be considered when describing disability of headache disorders at population levels.

The burden of headache disorders in North India: methodology, and validation of a Hindi version of the HARDSHIP questionnaire, for a community-based survey in Delhi and national capital territory region.

BACKGROUND: Knowledge of the prevalence and attributable burden of headache disorders in India is sparse, with only two recent population-based studies from South and East India. These produced conflicting results. A study in North India is needed. We report the methodology of such a study using, and validating, a Hindi translation of the Headache-Attributed Restriction, Disability, Social Handicap, and Impaired Participation (HARDSHIP) questionnaire developed by Lifting The Burden (LTB). Almost half of the Indian population speak Hindi or one of its dialects. METHODS: The study adopted LTB's standardized protocol for population-based studies in a cross-sectional survey using multistage random sampling conducted in urban Delhi and a surrounding rural area. Trained interviewers visited households unannounced, randomly selected one adult member from each and applied the Hindi version of HARDSHIP in face-to-face interviews. The most bothersome headache reported by participants was classified algorithmically into headache on ≥ 15 days/month (H15 +), migraine (including definite and probable) or tension-type headache (including definite and probable). These diagnoses were mutually exclusive. All participants diagnosed with H15 + and a 10% subsample of all others were additionally assessed by headache specialists and classified as above. We estimated the sensitivity and specificity of HARDSHIP diagnoses by comparison with the specialists' diagnoses. RESULTS: From 3,040 eligible households, 2,066 participants were interviewed. The participating proportions were 98.3% in rural areas but 52.9% in urban Delhi. In the validation subsample of 291 participants (149 rural, 142 urban), 61 did not report any headache (seven of those assessed by HARDSHIP, eight by headache specialists and 46 by both) [kappa = 0.83; 95% CI: 0.74-0.91]. In the remaining 230 participants who reported headache in the preceding year, sensitivity, specificity and kappa with (95% CI) were 0.73 (0.65-0.79), 0.80 (0.67-0.90) and 0.43 (0.34-0.58) for migraine; 0.71 (0.56-0.83), 0.80 (0.730.85) and 0.43 (0.37-0.62) for TTH and 0.75 (0.47-0.94), 0.93 (0.89-0.96) and 0.46 (0.34-0.58) for H15 + respectively. CONCLUSION: This study validates the Hindi version of HARDSHIP, finding its performance similar to those of other versions. It can be used to conduct population surveys in other Hindi-speaking regions of India.

The International Classification of Headache Disorders: History and future perspectives.

PURPOSE: The International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD) is universally accepted and forms the basis of headache management and clinical, experimental and pharmacological headache research. The present review summarizes the history of the three different editions of the classification, concentrating on aspects of general interest that are still valid today. METHODS: The article is based on the memory of the chairperson of three editions of the International Classification and on his notes in the work copies and published scientific classification studies. RESULTS: Many of the crucial issues in headache classification are discussed in the review of the different editions. Some have been resolved and some remain unresolved. The 11th edition of the World Health Organization's International Classification of Diseases (ICD) has been developed in close contact with the International Headache Society classification committee and is in fact an abbreviated version of ICHD-3. The principles of the ICHD have also been used by the International Association for Study of Pain in developing a pain classification now included in ICD-11. The many points of discussion of each of the three editions are still relevant for headache experts and all those who care for headache patients. CONCLUSION: Headache classification is a living and developing discipline of research. Here, the gradual expansion and refinement of the classification through 3 different editions are discussed with a view to present day relevance.

Initial validation of the 12-item Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia in a retrospective sample of adults with chronic headache.

INTRODUCTION: An area of emerging interest in chronic pain populations concerns fear of pain and associated fear of movement (kinesiophobia)-a cognitive appraisal pattern that is well-validated in non-headache chronic pain. However, there is limited research on whether this construct can be measured in a similar manner in headache populations. METHODS: The current project details a confirmatory factor analysis of the 12-Item Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (TSK-12) using a clinical data set from 210 adults with diverse headache diagnoses presenting for care at a multidisciplinary pain clinic. One item (concerning an "accident" that initiated the pain condition) was excluded from analysis. RESULTS: Results of the confirmatory factor analysis for the remaining 12 items indicated adequate model fit for the previously established 2-factor structure (activity avoidance and bodily harm/somatic focus subscales). In line with previous literature, total TSK-12 scores showed moderate correlations with pain severity, pain-related interference, positive and negative affect, depressive and anxious symptoms, and pain catastrophizing. DISCUSSION: The current study is the first to examine the factor structure of the TSK-12 in an adult headache population. The results support the relevance of pain-related fear to the functional and psychosocial status of adults with chronic headache, although model fit of the TSK-12 could be characterized as adequate rather than optimal. Limitations of the study include heterogeneity in headache diagnosis and rates of comorbid non-headache chronic pain in the sample. Future studies should replicate these findings in more homogenous headache groups (eg, chronic migraine) and examine associations with behavioral indices and treatment response.

New daily persistent headache after SARS-CoV-2 infection in Latin America: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Persistent headache is a frequent symptom after coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and there is currently limited knowledge about its clinical spectrum and predisposing factors. A subset of patients may be experiencing new daily persistent headache (NDPH) after COVID-19, which is among the most treatment-refractory primary headache syndromes. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study in Latin America to characterize individuals with persistent headache after severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and to identify factors associated with NDPH. Participants over 18 years old who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection and reported persistent headache among their symptoms completed an online survey that included demographics, past medical history, persistent headache clinical characteristics, and COVID-19 vaccination status. Based on participants' responses, NDPH diagnostic criteria were used to group participants into NDPH and non-NDPH groups. Participant data was summarized by descriptive statistics. Student's t and Mann-Whitney U tests were used according to the distribution of quantitative variables. For categorical variables, Pearson's chi-square and Fisher's exact tests were used according to the size of expected frequencies. Binomial logistic regression using the backward stepwise selection method was performed to identify factors associated with NDPH. RESULTS: Four hundred and twenty-one participants from 11 Latin American countries met the inclusion criteria. One in four participants met the NDPH diagnostic criteria. The mean age was 40 years, with most participants being female (82%). Over 90% of the participants reported having had mild/moderate COVID-19. Most participants had a history of headache before developing COVID-19 (58%), mainly migraine type (32%). The most predominant clinical characteristics in the NDPH group were occipital location, severe/unbearable intensity, burning character, and radiating pain (p < 0.05). A higher proportion of anxiety symptoms, sleep problems, myalgia, mental fog, paresthesia, nausea, sweating of the face or forehead, and ageusia or hypogeusia as concomitant symptoms were reported in participants with NDPH (p < 0.05). Palpebral edema as a concomitant symptom during the acute phase of COVID-19, occipital location, and burning character of the headache were risk factors associated with NDPH. CONCLUSION: This is the first study in Latin America that explored the clinical spectrum of NDPH after SARS-CoV-2 infection and its associated factors. Clinical evaluation of COVID-19 patients presenting with persistent headache should take into consideration NDPH.

Sex differences in the clinical manifestations related to dependence behaviors in medication-overuse headache.

OBJECTIVE: The present study aimed to compare sex differences in the clinical manifestations related to dependence behaviors in medication-overuse headache (MOH). METHODS: Consecutive patients with newly diagnosed chronic migraine (CM) with and without MOH based on the Third Edition of International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-3) were enrolled prospectively from the headache clinic of a tertiary medical center. Demographics and clinical profiles were collected by using a questionnaire, which included current use of tobacco, alcohol, and caffeinated beverages, the Leeds Dependence Questionnaire (LDQ), the Severity of Dependence Scale (SDS), the Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6), and the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI). RESULTS: In total, 1419 CM patients (1135F/284 M, mean age 41.7 ± 13.9 years) were recruited, including 799 with MOH (640F/159 M, mean age 42.5 ± 13.2 years) (56.3%). Smoking was associated with an increased risk for MOH in men (odds ratio [OR] = 3.60 [95% confidence interval = 1.73-7.50], p = 0.001), but not in women (OR = 1.34 [0.88-2.04], p = 0.171) (p = 0.021 for interaction). Hypnotic use ≥ 3 days/week was a risk factor for MOH (OR = 2.55 [95% confidence interval = 2.00-3.24], p < 0.001), regardless of sex. By using receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves, the cutoff scores of the LDQ for MOH were determined at 7 for women and 6 for men, and those for the SDS were 5 and 4, respectively (area under curve all ≥ 0.83). Among patients with MOH, the male sex was associated with a shorter latency between migraine onset and CM onset (12.9 ± 11.1 vs. 15.4 ± 11.5 years, p = 0.008), despite less average headache intensity (6.7 ± 1.9 vs. 7.2 ± 1.9, p = 0.005), functional impacts (HIT-6: 63.4 ± 8.3 vs. 65.1 ± 8.0, p = 0.009), and sleep disturbances (PSQI: 10.9 ± 4.4 vs. 12.2 ± 4.3, p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The current study identified an association between smoking and MOH in men, as well as sex-specific cutoffs of the LDQ and the SDS, for MOH. MOH was characterized by a shorter latency between migraine onset and CM onset in men and a more severe phenotype in women. Sex should be considered as an important factor in the evaluation of MOH.

Evaluation of the ICHD-3 diagnostic criteria for cardiac cephalalgia and new proposal.

BACKGROUND: The current International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition (ICHD-3) diagnostic criteria for cardiac cephalalgia were established according to previous case reports and the opinion of experts. We aimed to assess the ICHD-3 diagnostic criteria for cardiac cephalalgia. METHODS: We conducted a series of cases study and evaluated these criteria in 54 patients with cardiac cephalalgia. Next, we assessed whether the ICHD-3 diagnostic criteria B, C and D for migraine without aura were fulfilled by these patients. RESULTS: ICHD-3 criteria A, B, C1, C2 and D for cardiac cephalalgia were met by 100% of patients, whereas criterion C3 was fulfilled by 81.5%. The least frequently fulfilled sub-criterion was C3b (accompanied by nausea) (18.5%). Moreover, we found that ICHD-3 criteria B, C and D for migraine without aura were met by a low proportion of patients: 11.1%, 46.3% and 25.9%, respectively, and no patient fulfilled the three criteria simultaneously. CONCLUSION: Based on our results, we propose revised diagnostic criteria for cardiac cephalalgia. We suggest removing criterion C3 and C4. We also suggest removing the word "migraine-like" from its description.

[Diagnostic controversies on the International Classification of Headaches Disorders, III Edition]. / Controversias diagnósticas en la Clasificación Internacional de las Cefaleas, III Edición.

The review considered points of conflict that may lead to confusion in the daily use of the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-III). Both the controversies at the time of preparing the criteria and the overlaps produced after their use in daily practice were evaluated, argued through scientific bibliography. As relevant points, the anamnesis of a patient with headache should indicate the intensity of the pain as well as the duration of the painful episode and if its location is strictly unilateral. These points may be helpful in cases of moderate pain that do not fully meet the criteria for any of the primary headaches, a frequent dilemma in daily practice.

La revisión consideró los puntos de conflicto que puedan llevar a confusión en el uso diario de la clasificación internacional de las cefaleas (ICHD-III). Se evaluaron tanto las controversias al momento de confeccionar los criterios como las superposiciones producidas tras su utilización en la práctica diaria, argumentado a través de bibliografía científica. Como puntos relevantes, la anamnesis de un paciente con cefalea debe indicar la intensidad del dolor como así también la duración del episodio doloroso y si su localización es estrictamente unilateral. Estos puntos podrán ser de ayuda en los casos de dolor moderado que no cumplan en forma absoluta los criterios para ninguna de las cefaleas primarias, dilema frecuente en la práctica diaria.

Rethinking headache as a global public health case model for reaching the SDG 3 HEALTH by 2030.

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development sets out, through 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), a path for the prosperity of people and the planet. SDG 3 in particular aims to ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages and includes several targets to enhance health. This review presents a "headache-tailored" perspective on how to achieve SDG 3 by focusing on six specific actions: targeting chronic headaches; reducing the overuse of acute pain-relieving medications; promoting the education of healthcare professionals; granting access to medication in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC); implementing training and educational opportunities for healthcare professionals in low and middle income countries; building a global alliance against headache disorders. Addressing the burden of headache disorders directly impacts on populations' health, as well as on the possibility to improve the productivity of people aged below 50, women in particular. Our analysis pointed out several elements, and included: moving forward from frequency-based parameters to define headache severity; recognizing and managing comorbid diseases and risk factors; implementing a disease management multi-modal management model that incorporates pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments; early recognizing and managing the overuse of acute pain-relieving medications; promoting undergraduate, postgraduate, and continuing medical education of healthcare professionals with specific training on headache; and promoting a culture that favors the recognition of headaches as diseases with a neurobiological basis, where this is not yet recognized. Making headache care more sustainable is an achievable objective, which will require multi-stakeholder collaborations across all sectors of society, both health-related and not health-related. Robust investments will be needed; however, considering the high prevalence of headache disorders and the associated disability, these investments will surely improve multiple health outcomes and lift development and well-being globally.

New Daily Persistent Headache (NDPH): Unraveling the Complexities of Diagnosis, Pathophysiology, and Treatment.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The current article aims to provide an overview of new daily persistent headache (NDPH), with a particular emphasis on its pathophysiology, evaluation, and current treatment options. RECENT FINDINGS: NDPH is an uncommon and heterogeneous condition associated with various comorbidities and is of great significance due to its prolonged duration and high severity. Variable causes and clinical aspects of NDPH may reflect differences in its underlying pathophysiological mechanisms, including genetics, environmental triggers, neuroinflammation, and brain changes. When assessing a patient with NDPH, potential triggers, past medical history, and differential diagnosis should be carefully considered. Non-pharmacological interventions aimed to improve diet, sleep patterns, and reduce consumption of caffeine and alcohol are recommended for all patients. Nerve blockade and nerve stimulation seem to be more efficacious in children than adults. Antiviral medications and neuroinflammation-targeting treatments may be helpful, particularly, when an infectious disease or severe inflammation is suspected. NDPH patients with concurrent affective disorders may benefit from treatment with serotonin reuptake inhibitors, serotonin/norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, or benzodiazepines. Cerebrospinal-fluid-lowering medications may be useful for headaches started with a thunderclap or a Valsalva maneuver. Possible treatments for refractory NDPH include intravenous ketamine or lidocaine, onabotulinumtoxinA, and calcitonin gene-related peptide antibodies. Considering the variety of NDPH, it is critical to properly screen patients for correct diagnosis. Proper identification of potential mimics may enable precise therapy opportunities, yet there is no gold standard treatment for NDPH. Further well-designed studies are needed to elucidate the underlying mechanisms and develop effective treatment strategies for NDPH.

Orofacial pain for clinicians: A review of constant and attack-like facial pain syndromes.

BACKGROUND: Primary headache syndromes such as migraine are among the most common neurological syndromes. Chronic facial pain syndromes of non-odontogenic cause are less well known to neurologists despite being highly disabling. Given the pain localization, these patients often consult dentists first who may conduct unnecessary dental interventions even if a dental cause is not identified. Once it becomes clear that dental modalities have no effect on the pain, patients may be referred to another dentist or orofacial pain specialist, and later to a neurologist. Unfortunately, neurologists are also often not familiar with chronic orofacial pain syndromes although they share the neural system, i.e., trigeminal nerve and central processing areas for headache disorders. CONCLUSION: In essence, three broad groups of orofacial pain patients are important for clinicians: (i) Attack-like orofacial pain conditions, which encompass neuralgias of the cranial nerves and less well-known facial variants of primary headache syndromes; (ii) persistent orofacial pain disorders, including neuropathic pain and persistent idiopathic facial/dentoalveolar pain; and (iii) other differential diagnostically relevant orofacial pain conditions encountered by clinicians such as painful temporomandibular disorders, bruxism, sinus pain, dental pain, and others which may interfere (trigger) and overlap with headache. It is rewarding to know and recognize the clinical picture of these facial pain syndromes, given that, just like for headache, an internationally accepted classification system has been published and many of these syndromes can be treated with medications generally used by neurologists for other pain syndromes.

Educational initiatives in headache medicine: A 20-year scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Headache disorders are among the most common and disabling medical conditions worldwide, have a great societal impact and are a common reason to seek medical care. Headache disorders are often misdiagnosed and undertreated, and the number of headache fellowship-trained physicians cannot meet patient demand. Educational initiatives for non-headache-specialist clinicians may be an avenue to increase clinician competency and patient access to appropriate management. OBJECTIVE: To undertake a scoping review of the educational initiatives in headache medicine for medical students, trainees, general practitioners/primary care physicians, and neurologists. METHODS: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines for scoping reviews, an author (M.D.), with the help of a medical librarian, conducted a search of the Embase, Ovid Medline, and PsychInfo databases for articles related to medical educational initiatives on headache medicine in medical students, residents, and physicians over the last 20 years. RESULTS: A total of 17 articles met the inclusion criteria for this scoping review. Six articles were identified for medical students, seven for general practitioners/primary care physicians, one for emergency medicine residents, two for neurology residents, and one for neurologists. Certain educational initiatives were headache-focused while others had headaches as one of the educational topics. Educational content was delivered and assessed via diverse and innovative means, such as flipped classroom, simulation, theatrical performance, repeated quizzing and study, and a formalized headache elective. CONCLUSION: Education initiatives in headache medicine are important to improve competency and patient access to appropriate management of various headache disorders. Future research should focus on using innovative and evidence-based methods of content delivery, knowledge, and procedural assessment, and evaluating changes in practice behaviors.

Headache clinicians' perspectives on the remote monitoring of patients' electronic diary data: A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: We assessed headache clinicians' viewpoints on potential remote access to patients' digital headache diary data and the practicalities of data utilization. BACKGROUND: With the ubiquitous nature of electronic medical records and the existence of remote monitoring (RM) for many medical conditions, there is now the potential for remote symptom monitoring for patients with headache disorders. While patients are asked to utilize headache diaries, clinicians may or may not have access to the data before patient visits, and their perspectives regarding this emerging technology are currently unknown. METHODS: After recruiting participants from the National Institutes of Health Pain Consortium Network, the American Headache Society Special Interest Section listservs, and Twitter and Facebook social media platforms, we conducted 20 semi-structured qualitative interviews of headache providers across the United States from various types of institutions and asked them their perspectives on remote access to patient headache diary data. We transcribed the interviews, which were then coded by two independent coders. Themes and sub-themes were developed using inductive content analysis. RESULTS: All clinicians felt the RM data needed to be integrated into the electronic medical record. Six themes emerged from the interviews: (i) Clinician perspectives on how RM could be beneficial but at other times could create obstacles/challenges, (ii) operationally, data integration could benefit headache care, (iii) there should be initial logistical considerations for bringing RM into clinical care, (iv) education may need to be provided to both patients and clinicians, (v) there are likely research benefits associated with RM, and (vi) additional suggestions for considering potential integration of RM into practice. CONCLUSIONS: While headache clinicians had mixed opinions on the benefits/challenges that RM presents to patient care, patient satisfaction, and visit time, new ideas emerged that may help advance the field.