Search

Background and purpose: Although migraine is the second most disabling condition worldwide, there is poor awareness of it. The objective was to assess the awareness of migraine and previous diagnostic and therapeutic consultations and treatments in a large international population of migraineurs. Methods: This was a multicentre study conducted in 12 headache centres in seven countries. Each centre recruited up to 100 patients referred for a first visit and diagnosed with migraine. Subjects were given a structured clinical questionnaire‐based interview about the perceptions of the type of headache they suffered from, its cause, previous diagnoses, investigations and treatments. Results: In all, 1161 patients completed the study. Twenty‐eight per cent of participants were aware that they suffered from migraine. Sixty‐four per cent called their migraine 'headache'; less commonly they used terms such as 'cervical pain' (4%), tension headache (3%) and sinusitis (1%). Eight per cent of general practitioners and 35% of specialists (of whom 51% were neurologists and/or headache specialists) consulted for migraine formulated the correct diagnosis. Before participating in the study, 50% of patients had undergone X‐ray, computed tomography and/or magnetic resonance imaging of the cervical spine and 76% underwent brain and/or cervical spine imaging for migraine. Twenty‐eight per cent of patients had received symptomatic migraine‐specific medications and 29% at least one migraine preventive medication. Conclusions: Although migraine is a very common disease, poor awareness of it amongst patients and physicians is still an issue in several countries. This highlights the importance of the promotion of migraine awareness to reduce its burden and limit direct and indirect costs and the risk of exposure to useless investigations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Purpose: Although there is extensive evidence about the safety of monoclonal antibodies against calcitonin gene-related peptide (anti-CGRP mAbs) in combination with traditional drugs, scarce data are available on the safety of their combination with other mAbs. This study aimed to evaluate the 6-month effectiveness and tolerability of anti-CGRP mAbs in combination with other mAbs for different diseases., Methods: Patients included in the Italian Headache Registry and treated concomitantly with an anti-CGRP mAb and another mAb were included. Effectiveness outcomes for migraine included reduction from baseline of monthly headache days (MHDs), Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) score, Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6) scores, and Patients' Global Impression of Change (PGIC) scale. Adverse events (AEs) were recorded., Results: Thirty-eight patients were included. In 27 patients (71.1%), the anti-CGRP mAb was added to a previously ongoing mAb. Nine patients (23.7%) discontinued one of the two mAbs before the end of treatment (seven discontinued the anti-CGRP mAb and two the other mAb). One patient discontinued for AEs. Anti-CGRP mAbs were discontinued due to ineffectiveness (n = 5, 55.5%) and one each (11.1%) for clinical remission and lost to follow-up. MHDs significantly decreased from baseline to 3 months (p < 0.0001) and 6 months (p < 0.001), as did the MIDAS and the HIT-6 scores at 3 and 6 months (p < 0.001). For anti-CGRP mAbs, 27.4% of patients reported PGIC ≥ 5 at 3 months and 48.3% at 6 months. Mild AEs associated with introduction of a second mAb were detected in six patients (15.8%)., Conclusions: In this real-world study, anti-CGRP mAbs showed safety and effectiveness when administered concomitantly with other mAbs., (© 2024 The Author(s). European Journal of Neurology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Academy of Neurology.)