Search

Objective: To understand the mechanisms of mindfulness' impact on migraine. Background: Promising mindfulness research demonstrates potential benefit in migraine, but no data‐driven model exists from the lived experiences of patients that explains the mechanisms of mindfulness in migraine. Methods: Semi‐structured qualitative interviews were conducted with adults with migraine who participated in two mindfulness‐based stress reduction (MBSR) clinical trials (n = 43). Interviews were audio‐recorded, transcribed, and summarized into a framework matrix with development of a master codebook. Constructivist grounded theory approach was used to identify themes/subthemes. Results: Participants who learned mindfulness techniques through MBSR experienced altered pain perception, altered response to migraine attacks and disease, increased awareness of external and internal experiences, improved overall well‐being, and group benefits. Mindfulness resulted in earlier stress‐body awareness and increased interoceptive awareness resulting in earlier attack recognition, leading to earlier and more effective management. Interictal factors of self‐blame, guilt, and stigma decreased while migraine acceptance, hope, empowerment, self‐efficacy, and self‐compassion increased. Improved emotion regulation resulted in decreased fear of migraine, pain catastrophizing, anticipatory anxiety, and pain reactivity. Although taught as prevention, mindfulness was used both acutely and prophylactically. We created a conceptual model hypothesizing that MBSR skills led to an infusion of mindfulness in daily life, resulting in altered pain perception and experience, ultimately leading to improvement in overall well‐being, which may positively feed back to the infusion of mindfulness in daily life. The therapeutic benefit of learning mindfulness in a group setting may moderate these effects. Conclusions: This study identified several new potential mechanisms of mindfulness' effect on migraine. After learning MBSR skills, participants reported altered pain and migraine perception and experiences. Increased stress‐body and interoceptive awareness resulted in earlier migraine awareness and treatment. Mindfulness may target important interictal factors that affect disease burden such as fear of migraine, pain catastrophizing, and anticipatory anxiety. This is the first data‐driven study to help elucidate the mechanisms of mindfulness on migraine from patient voices and can help direct future research endeavors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This article systematically reviews the empirical literature examining the efficacy of digital headache management interventions for patients with a primary headache disorder. Background: Digital headache management interventions provide opportunities to improve access to behavioral headache interventions to underserved groups. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, and EBSCO (PsycInfo, Education Research Complete, ERIC, Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection) and reference review was conducted. Included studies had to recruit a sample with a primary headache diagnosis, be a randomized controlled trial including a digital component, assess a headache outcome (i.e., frequency, duration, severity, intensity, disability) or quality of life, and be published in English. Two authors independently extracted data for included studies. The methodological quality of studies was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk‐of‐bias tool. Results: Thirteen studies with unique interventions met inclusion criteria. More than half of the studies were pilots; however, nearly 70% (9/13) demonstrated significant between‐group or within‐group improvements on one or more headache‐related outcomes. All interventions included some form of relaxation training and the majority were delivered via interactive website. While fewer than half the studies report participant race and/or ethnicity, of those that do, 83% (5/6) reported a predominately White/Caucasian sample. Conclusions: Efficacy testing of digital headache interventions is in its infancy with the majority of these studies relying on pilot studies with small samples comprised of homogenous patient populations. Interactive websites were the most common digital medium to deliver digital headache management interventions and have demonstrated promising results. Further testing using large‐scale randomized controlled trials and exploration of other digital tools is warranted. Future studies with more diverse samples are needed to inform health equity of digital headache interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To better characterize the ways that migraine affects multiple domains of life. Background: Further understanding of migraine burden is needed. Methods: Adults with migraine randomized to mindfulness‐based stress reduction or headache education arms (n = 81) in two separate randomized clinical trials participated in semistructured in‐person qualitative interviews conducted after the interventions. Interviews queried participants on migraine impact on life and were audio‐recorded, transcribed, and summarized into a framework matrix. A master codebook was created until meaning saturation was reached and magnitude coding established code frequency. Themes and subthemes were identified using a constructivist grounded theory approach. Results: Despite most participants being treated with acute and/or prophylactic medications, 90% (73/81) reported migraine had a negative impact on overall life, with 68% (55/81) endorsing specific domains of life impacted and 52% (42/81) describing impact on emotional health. Six main themes of migraine impact emerged: (1) global negative impact on overall life; (2) impact on emotional health; (3) impact on cognitive function; (4) impact on specific domains of life (work/career, family, social); (5) fear and avoidance (pain catastrophizing and anticipatory anxiety); and (6) internalized and externalized stigma. Participants reported how migraine (a) controls life, (b) makes life difficult, and (c) causes disability during attacks, with participants (d) experiencing a lack of control and/or (e) attempting to push through despite migraine. Emotional health was affected through (a) isolation, (b) anxiety, (c) frustration/anger, (d) guilt, (e) mood changes/irritability, and (f) depression/hopelessness. Cognitive function was affected through concentration and communication difficulties. Conclusions: Migraine has a global negative impact on overall life, cognitive and emotional health, work, family, and social life. Migraine contributes to isolation, frustration, guilt, fear, avoidance behavior, and stigma. A greater understanding of the deep burden of this chronic neurological disease is needed to effectively target and treat what is most important to those living with migraine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To educate physicians about appropriate acute migraine treatment guidelines by determining (1) where headache patients were first prescribed opioids and barbiturates, and (2) the characteristics of the patient population who had been prescribed opioids and barbiturates. Background Several specialty societies issued recommendations that caution against the indiscriminate use of opioids or barbiturate containing medications for the treatment of migraine. These medications are still being prescribed in various medical settings and could put headache specialists in a difficult position when patients request these agents. Methods Patients presenting to a headache center comprised of eight physicians were asked to complete a survey that assessed headache types, comorbid conditions, and whether they had ever been prescribed opioids or barbiturates. If they responded affirmatively to the latter question, they were asked about the prescribing doctor, medication effectiveness, and whether they were currently on the medication. Data collection took place over a one month period. Results Two hundred forty-four patients were given the survey and 218 of these patients completed it. The predominant diagnosis was migraine (83.9%). More than half of the patients reported having been prescribed an opioid (54.8%) or a barbiturate (56.7%). About one fifth were on opioids (19.4%) or barbiturates (20.7%) at the time of completing the survey. Most patients reported being on opioids for more than 2 years (24.6%) or less than one week (32.1%). The reasons most frequently cited for stopping opioids were that the medications did not help (30.9%) or that they saw a new doctor who would not prescribe them (29.4%). Among patients who had previously been on barbiturates, 32.2% had been on these for over 2 years. Most patients (61.8%) stopped barbiturates because they did not find the medication helpful, while 17.6% said they saw a new doctor who would not prescribe them. The physician specialty most frequently cited as being the first prescriber for opioids was emergency medicine (20.2%) with family doctors and general neurologists the next groups at 17.7% each. General neurologists were the most frequent (37.8%) first prescribers of barbiturates. Conclusions Approximately 20% of patients presenting to a headache center reported current use of opioids and/or barbiturates. ED physicians were reported to be the most frequent first prescribers of opioids and general neurologists were the most frequent first prescribers of barbiturates. Taken as a whole, these data provide a useful snapshot of the wide variety of physician specialties that might benefit from additional education on the appropriate use of opioids and barbiturate-containing medications in patients with headaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective Our objective was to assess the safety, feasibility, and effects of the standardized 8-week mindfulness-based stress reduction ( MBSR) course in adults with migraines. Background Stress is a well-known trigger for headaches. Research supports the general benefits of mind/body interventions for migraines, but there are few rigorous studies supporting the use of specific standardized interventions. MBSR is a standardized 8-week mind/body intervention that teaches mindfulness meditation/yoga. Preliminary research has shown MBSR to be effective for chronic pain syndromes, but it has not been evaluated for migraines. Methods We conducted a randomized controlled trial with 19 episodic migraineurs randomized to either MBSR (n = 10) or usual care (n = 9). Our primary outcome was change in migraine frequency from baseline to initial follow-up. Secondary outcomes included change in headache severity, duration, self-efficacy, perceived stress, migraine-related disability/impact, anxiety, depression, mindfulness, and quality of life from baseline to initial follow-up. Results MBSR was safe (no adverse events), with 0% dropout and excellent adherence (daily meditation average: 34 ± 11 minutes, range 16-50 minutes/day). Median class attendance from 9 classes (including retreat day) was 8 (range [3, 9]); average class attendance was 6.7 ± 2.5. MBSR participants had 1.4 fewer migraines/month ( MBSR: 3.5 to 1.0 vs control: 1.2 to 0 migraines/month, 95% confidence interval CI [−4.6, 1.8], P = .38), an effect that did not reach statistical significance in this pilot sample. Headaches were less severe, although not significantly so (−1.3 points/headache on 0-10 scale, [−2.3, 0.09], P = .053) and shorter (−2.9 hours/headache, [−4.6, −0.02], P = .043) vs control. Migraine Disability Assessment and Headache Impact Test-6 dropped in MBSR vs control (−12.6, [−22.0, −1.0], P = .017 and −4.8, [−11.0, −1.0], P = .043, respectively). Self-efficacy and mindfulness improved in MBSR vs control (13.2 [1.0, 30.0], P = .035 and 13.1 [3.0, 26.0], P = .035 respectively). Conclusions MBSR is safe and feasible for adults with migraines. Although the small sample size of this pilot trial did not provide power to detect statistically significant changes in migraine frequency or severity, secondary outcomes demonstrated this intervention had a beneficial effect on headache duration, disability, self-efficacy, and mindfulness. Future studies with larger sample sizes are warranted to further evaluate this intervention for adults with migraines. This study was prospectively registered ( identifier NCT01545466). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Optimizing patient satisfaction with their medical care and maximizing patient adherence with treatment plans requires an understanding of patient preferences regarding education and their role in decision making when treatments are prescribed. Objective To assess the congruence between patient expectations and actual practice regarding education and decision making at the time a triptan is prescribed. Methods This multicenter cross-sectional survey was performed by headache fellow members of the American Headache Society Headache Fellows Research Consortium at their respective tertiary care headache clinics. Migraine patients who were new patients to the headache clinic and who were current triptan users (use within prior 3 months and for ≥1 year) or past triptan users (no use within 6 months; prior use within 2 years) completed questionnaires that assessed the education they received and their role in decision making at the time a triptan was first prescribed as well as their desire for education and participation in decision making when a triptan is prescribed. Results Consistent with patient preference, most participants received the majority of their education about the triptan from the prescriber's office (70.2%). In descending rank order, participants most desired to be informed about how to decide if a triptan should be taken, when during the course of migraine a triptan should be taken, possible side effects, cost, and how to obtain refills. Regarding side effects, most participants preferred to receive education about the most common side effects of a triptan rather than addressing all possible side effects. Regarding triptan dosing, participants desired to be informed in descending order of importance about taking other medications with triptans, how many doses can be taken for each migraine, how many doses can be taken each week/month, what to do if the triptan does not work, and the triptan mechanism of action. The vast majority of participants (92%) preferred that the decision to prescribe a triptan be a joint decision between the patient and the provider. In actual practice, participants were not as involved in decision making as they would like to be, with patients reporting that the prescriber was the sole decision maker 55.1% of the time. Participants had confidence in their providers (87.7%) and generally felt they did a good job educating them about the triptan (71.1%). Conclusions Based on this study, it is clear that patients prefer the shared model approach to medical decision making in regards to the prescription of triptans. The majority of patients received education that was generally consistent with their desires. Patients preferred that the prescribing provider be the primary source of information. The most desired educational topics included when/if a triptan should be taken, the number of times a triptan can be taken for a single migraine, co-administration with other acute medications, and the most common side effects. Focusing on these topics should enhance patient satisfaction and may improve compliance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To identify factors associated with triptan discontinuation among migraine patients. Background It is unclear why many migraine patients who are prescribed triptans discontinue this treatment. This study investigated correlates of triptan discontinuation with a focus on potentially modifiable factors to improve compliance. Methods This multicenter cross-sectional survey (n = 276) was performed at US tertiary care headache clinics. Headache fellows who were members of the American Headache Society Headache Fellows Research Consortium recruited episodic and chronic migraine patients who were current triptan users (use within prior 3 months and for ≥1 year) or past triptan users (no use within 6 months; prior use within 2 years). Univariate analyses were first completed to compare current triptan users to past users for: migraine characteristics, other migraine treatments, triptan education, triptan efficacy, triptan side effects, type of prescribing provider, Migraine Disability Assessment ( MIDAS) scores and Beck Depression Inventory ( BDI) scores. Then, a multivariable logistic regression model was selected from all possible combinations of predictor variables to determine the factors that best correlated with triptan discontinuation. Results Compared with those still using triptans (n = 207), those who had discontinued use (n = 69) had higher rates of medication overuse (30 vs 18%, P = .04) and were more likely to have ever used opioids for migraine treatment (57 vs 38%, P = .006) as well as higher MIDAS (mean 63 vs 37, P = .001) and BDI scores (mean 10.4 vs 7.4, P = .009). Compared with discontinued users, current triptan users were more likely to have had their triptan prescribed by a specialist (neurologist, headache specialist, or pain specialist) (74 vs 54%, P = .002) and were more likely to report headache resolution (53 vs 14%, P < .001) or a reduction in pain intensity (71 vs 28%, P < .001) most of the time from their triptan. On a 1-5 scale (1 = disagree, 5 = agree), triptan users felt they had more: control over their migraine attacks (2.9 vs 2.1), confidence in their prescribing provider (4.5 vs 4.0), and were more educated about triptan use (4.2 vs 3.7) compared with triptan discontinuers ( P < .001 for all comparisons). Although both current and prior users reported similar rates of side effects (48 vs 43%, P = .44), of those who discontinued use, the main reasons were for lack of effect (44%) and side effects (29%). Our multivariable modeling revealed that the strongest correlate of triptan discontinuation was lack of efficacy (odds ratio = 17, 95% confidence interval [8.8, 33.0]). Other factors associated with discontinuation included MIDAS > 24 (2.6, [1.5, 4.6]), BDI >4 (2.5, [1.4, 4.5]), and a history of ever using opioids for migraine therapy (2.2, [1.3, 3.8]). Having a triptan prescribed by a specialist and using at least 1 other abortive medication with the triptan were associated with a decreased likelihood of triptan discontinuation (0.41, [0.2-0.7] and 0.44 [0.3, 0.8], respectively). Conclusions As expected, discontinuation was most correlated with lack of efficacy, but other important factors associated with those who had discontinued use included greater migraine-related disability, depression, and the use of opioids for migraine attacks. Compared with patients who had discontinued triptans, current triptan users felt more: educated about their triptan, control over their migraine attacks, and confidence in their prescribing provider. Current triptan users had their triptan prescribed by a specialist and used other abortive medications with their triptan more often compared with patients who had discontinued triptans. Given the cross-sectional nature of this study, we cannot determine if these factors contributed to triptan discontinuation or reflect the impact of such discontinuation. Interventions that address modifiable risk factors for triptan discontinuation may decrease the likelihood of triptan discontinuation and thus improve overall migraine control. Because lack of efficacy was most strongly associated with triptan discontinuation, future research should determine why triptans are effective for some patients but not others. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]