Search

Objective: To better understand the breadth and frequency of symptoms across the phases of the migraine cycle using data captured from qualitative patient interviews conducted through the Migraine Clinical Outcome Assessment System (MiCOAS) project., Background: People living with migraine experience a range of symptoms across the pre-headache, headache, post-headache, and interictal phases of the migraine cycle. Although clinical diagnostic criteria and clinical trial endpoints focus largely on cardinal symptoms or monthly migraine days, migraine symptom profiles are far more complex. As a part of the MiCOAS project, semi-structured qualitative interviews were undertaken to better understand the migraine-related symptomology from the patient's viewpoint., Methods: This concept elicitation study used iterative purposeful sampling to select 40 people with self-reported medical diagnosis of migraine for interviews that were conducted via audio-only web conferencing. Key topics related to migraine symptoms, including mood/emotion symptoms, were identified using content analysis. Interview transcripts were also coded to reflect the phase of migraine under discussion, so that patient experiences could be compared by phase., Results: Forty participants (50%, n = 20 episodic migraine; 50%, n = 20 chronic migraine), aged from 21 to 70 years old reported a total of 60 unique symptoms, which were categorized into 30 broader symptom categories. Participants reported between 7 and 22 unique symptom categories across all phases. During pre-headache and headache, participants reported a median of 7.5 (interquartile range [IQR] = 5.5) and 8 (IQR = 4.0) different symptom categories compared to 4 (IQR = 3.0) and 1.5 (IQR = 2.5) for the post-headache and interictal periods, respectively. Head pain during the headache phase was the only universally reported symptom (100%, n = 40). Pooling across all phases, the next most reported symptoms were light sensitivity (93%, n = 37), nausea (88%, n = 35), irritability/impatience (83%, n = 24), sound sensitivity (80%, n = 32), and fatigue/exhaustion (80%, n = 32). One or more interictal symptoms were reported by 73% (n = 29) of participants and included mood/emotion symptoms, such as anxiety (30%, n = 12), depression (18%, n = 7), and anger (15%, n = 6), as well as cardinal symptoms, such as light sensitivity (13%, n = 5) and nausea (13%, n = 5)., Conclusions: Patients experience a range of symptoms across the phases of the migraine cycle. Results often aligned with clinical expectations, but non-cardinal migraine-related symptoms were reported both inside and outside the headache phase, including between attacks. These discoveries highlight the importance of assessing a range of symptoms and timing when developing patient-reported outcome measures for migraine clinical trials., (© 2024 The Author(s). Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Headache Society.)

Objective: Utilize machine learning models to identify factors associated with seeking medical care for migraine., Background: Migraine is a leading cause of disability worldwide, yet many people with migraine do not seek medical care., Methods: The web-based survey, ObserVational survey of the Epidemiology, tReatment and Care Of MigrainE (US), annually recruited demographically representative samples of the US adult population (2018-2020). Respondents with active migraine were identified via a validated diagnostic questionnaire and/or a self-reported medical diagnosis of migraine, and were then asked if they had consulted a healthcare professional for their headaches in the previous 12 months (i.e., "seeking care"). This included in-person/telephone/or e-visit at Primary Care, Specialty Care, or Emergency/Urgent Care locations. Supervised machine learning (Random Forest) and Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) algorithms identified 13/54 sociodemographic and clinical factors most associated with seeking medical care for migraine. Random Forest models complex relationships (including interactions) between predictor variables and a response. LASSO is also an efficient feature selection algorithm. Linear models were used to determine the multivariable association of those factors with seeking care., Results: Among 61,826 persons with migraine, the mean age was 41.7 years (±14.8) and 31,529/61,826 (51.0%) sought medical care for migraine in the previous 12 months. Of those seeking care for migraine, 23,106/31,529 (73.3%) were female, 21,320/31,529 (67.6%) were White, and 28,030/31,529 (88.9%) had health insurance. Severe interictal burden (assessed via the Migraine Interictal Burden Scale-4, MIBS-4) occurred in 52.8% (16,657/31,529) of those seeking care and in 23.1% (6991/30,297) of those not seeking care; similar patterns were observed for severe migraine-related disability (assessed via the Migraine Disability Assessment Scale, MIDAS) (36.7% [11,561/31,529] vs. 14.6% [4434/30,297]) and severe ictal cutaneous allodynia (assessed via the Allodynia Symptom Checklist, ASC-12) (21.0% [6614/31,529] vs. 7.4% [2230/30,297]). Severe interictal burden (vs. none, OR 2.64, 95% CI [2.5, 2.8]); severe migraine-related disability (vs. little/none, OR 2.2, 95% CI [2.0, 2.3]); and severe ictal allodynia (vs. none, OR 1.7, 95% CI [1.6, 1.8]) were strongly associated with seeking care for migraine., Conclusions: Seeking medical care for migraine is associated with higher interictal burden, disability, and allodynia. These findings could support interventions to promote care-seeking among people with migraine, encourage assessment of these factors during consultation, and prioritize these domains in selecting treatments and measuring their benefits., (© 2024 Eli Lilly and Company and The Author(s). Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Headache Society.)

Objective: To identify and disseminate research priorities for the headache field that should be areas of research focus during the next 10 years., Background: Establishing research priorities helps focus and synergize the work of headache investigators, allowing them to reach the most important research goals more efficiently and completely., Methods: The Headache Research Priorities organizing and executive committees and working group chairs led a multistakeholder and international group of experts to develop headache research priorities. The research priorities were developed and reviewed by clinicians, scientists, people with headache, representatives from headache organizations, health-care industry representatives, and the public. Priorities were revised and finalized after receiving feedback from members of the research priorities working groups and after a public comment period., Results: Twenty-five research priorities across eight categories were identified: human models, animal models, pathophysiology, diagnosis and management, treatment, inequities and disparities, research workforce development, and quality of life. The priorities address research models and methods, development and optimization of outcome measures and endpoints, pain and non-pain symptoms of primary and secondary headaches, investigations into mechanisms underlying headache attacks and chronification of headache disorders, treatment optimization, research workforce recruitment, development, expansion, and support, and inequities and disparities in the headache field. The priorities are focused enough that they help to guide headache research and broad enough that they are widely applicable to multiple headache types and various research methods., Conclusions: These research priorities serve as guidance for headache investigators when planning their research studies and as benchmarks by which the headache field can measure its progress over time. These priorities will need updating as research goals are met and new priorities arise., (© 2024 American Headache Society.)

Objective: To assess the prevalence and impact of neck pain during headache among respondents with migraine in the multicountry Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes - International (CaMEO-I) Study., Background: Neck pain among individuals with migraine is highly prevalent and contributes to disability., Methods: The CaMEO-I was a prospective, cross-sectional, web-based study conducted in Canada, France, Germany, Japan, United Kingdom, and the United States. A demographically representative sample of participants from each country completed a screening survey to evaluate headache characteristics. Respondents with headache were identified as having migraine or non-migraine headache based on modified International Classification of Headache Disorders, third edition, criteria; those with migraine completed a detailed survey with migraine-specific assessments. Results were stratified by the presence or absence of neck pain with headache (NPWH). For these analyses, data were pooled across the six countries., Results: Of 51,969 respondents who reported headache within the past 12 months, 14,492 (27.9%) were classified as having migraine; the remaining 37,477 (72.1%) had non-migraine headache. Overall, 9896/14,492 (68.3%) of respondents with migraine headache reported NPWH, which was significantly higher (p < 0.001) than the proportion of respondents with non-migraine headache who reported NPWH (13,536/37,477 [36.1%]). Among respondents with migraine, moderate-to-severe disability was significantly more prevalent for those with NPWH versus without (47.7% [4718/9896] vs. 28.9%, p < 0.001). Respondents with NPWH versus without also had significantly greater work productivity losses, at a median (interquartile range [IQR]) of 50.0 (20.0, 71.3) vs. 30.0 (0.0, 60.0) (p < 0.001), lower quality of life (Migraine-Specific Quality of Life questionnaire version 2.1, median [IQR] Role Function-Restrictive domain score 60.0 [42.9, 74.3] vs. 68.6 [54.3, 82.9], p < 0.001), higher prevalence of depression and anxiety symptoms (depression, 40.2% [3982/9896] vs. 28.2% [1296/4596], p < 0.001); anxiety, 41.2% [4082/9896] vs. 29.2% [1343/4596], p < 0.001), higher prevalence of cutaneous allodynia during headache (54.0% [5345/9896] vs. 36.6% [1681/4596], p < 0.001), and higher prevalence of poor acute treatment optimization (61.1% [5582/9129] vs. 53.3% [2197/4122], p < 0.001)., Conclusions: Nearly 70% of respondents with migraine reported NPWH. Individuals with migraine with neck pain during their headaches had greater disability, depression, anxiety, and cutaneous allodynia (during headache) than those without neck pain during their headaches. They also had diminished quality of life and work productivity, and poorer response to acute treatment compared with those without neck pain., (© 2024 The Author(s). Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Headache Society.)

Objective: To analyze data from the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes-International (CaMEO-I) Study in order to characterize preventive medication use and identify preventive usage gaps among people with migraine across multiple countries., Background: Guidelines for the preventive treatment of migraine are available from scientific organizations in various countries. Although these guidelines differ among countries, eligibility for preventive treatment is generally based on monthly headache day (MHD) frequency and associated disability. The overwhelming majority of people with migraine who are eligible for preventive treatment do not receive it., Methods: The CaMEO-I Study was a cross-sectional, observational, web-based panel survey study performed in six countries: Canada, France, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States. People were invited to complete an online survey in their national language(s) to identify those with migraine according to modified International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition, criteria. People classified with migraine answered questions about current and ever use of both acute and preventive treatments for migraine. Available preventive medications for migraine differed by country. MHD frequency and associated disability data were collected. The American Headache Society (AHS) 2021 Consensus Statement algorithm was used to determine candidacy for preventive treatment (i.e., ≥3 monthly MHDs with severe disability, ≥4 MHDs with some disability, or ≥6 MHDs regardless of level of disability)., Results: Among 90,613 valid completers of the screening survey, 14,492 met criteria for migraine and completed the full survey, with approximately 2400 respondents from each country. Based on the AHS consensus statement preventive treatment candidacy algorithm, averaging across countries, 36.2% (5246/14,492) of respondents with migraine qualified for preventive treatment. Most respondents (84.5% [4431/5246]) who met criteria for preventive treatment according to the AHS consensus statement were not using a preventive medication at the time of the survey. Moreover, 19.3% (2799/14,492) of respondents had ever used preventive medication (ever users); 58.1% (1625/2799) of respondents who reported ever using a preventive medication for migraine were still taking it. Of the respondents who were currently using a preventive medication, 50.2% (815/1625) still met the criteria for needing preventive treatment based on the AHS consensus statement., Conclusions: Most people with migraine who qualify for preventive treatment are not currently taking it. Additionally, many people currently taking preventive pharmacologic treatment still meet the algorithm criteria for needing preventive treatment, suggesting inadequate benefit from their current regimen., (© 2024 AbbVie Inc and The Authors. Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Headache Society.)

Background: This study reviewed migraine prevalence and disability gathered through epidemiologic survey studies in the United States conducted over the past three decades. We summarized these studies and evaluated changing patterns of disease prevalence and disability., Methods: We conducted a systematic review of US studies addressing the prevalence, disability, and/or burden of migraine, including both episodic migraine (EM) and chronic migraine (CM). A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol was used in conjunction with the PubMed search engine. Eligible studies were published before February 2022, were conducted in the United States, included representative samples, and used a case definition of migraine based on the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD). The primary measure of disease burden was the Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS). The MIDAS measures days lost due to migraine over 3 months in three domains and defines groups with moderate (Grade III) or severe disability (Grade IV) using cut-scores., Results: Of the 1609 identified records, 26 publications from 11 US population-based studies met eligibility criteria. The prevalence of migraine in the population has remained relatively consistent for the past 30 years: ranging from 11.7% to 14.7% overall, 17.1% to 19.2% in women, and 5.6% to 7.2% in men in the studies reviewed. CM prevalence is 0.91% (1.3% among women and 0.5% of men) in adults and 0.8% in adolescents. The proportion of people with migraine and moderate-to-severe MIDAS disability (Grades III-IV), has trended upward across studies from 22.0% in 2005 to 39.0% in 2012, to 43.2% in 2016, and 42.4% in 2018. A consistently higher proportion of women were assigned MIDAS Grades III/IV relative to men., Conclusion: The prevalence of migraine in the United States has remained stable over the past three decades while migraine-related disability has increased. The disability trend could reflect changes in reporting, study methodology, social and societal changes, or changes in exacerbating or remediating factors that make migraine more disabling, among other hypotheses. These issues merit further investigation., (© 2024 American Headache Society.)

Objective: To evaluate unmet needs among individuals with episodic migraine (EM) in the United States (US)., Background: Data are limited on the impact of headache frequency (HF) and preventive treatment failure (TF) on the burden of migraine in the US., Methods: A retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of 2019 National Health and Wellness Survey (NHWS) data was conducted from an opt-in online survey that identified respondents (aged ≥18 years) in the US with self-reported physician-diagnosed migraine. Participants were stratified by HF (low: 0-3 days/month; moderate-to-high: 4-14 days/month) and prior preventive TF (preventive naive; 0-1 TF; ≥2 TFs). Comparisons were conducted between preventive TF groups using multivariable regression models controlling for patient demographic and health characteristics., Results: Among individuals with moderate-to-high frequency EM, the NHWS identified 397 with ≥2 TFs, 334 with 0-1 TF, and 356 as preventive naive. The 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (version 2) Physical Component Summary scores were significantly lower among those with ≥2 TFs, at a mean (standard error [SE]) of 41.4 [0.8] versus the preventive-naive 46.8 [0.9] and 0-1 TF 44.5 [0.9] groups; p < 0.001 for both). Migraine Disability Assessment Scale scores were significantly higher in the ≥2 TFs, at a mean (SE) of 37.7 (3.9) versus preventive-naive 26.8 (2.9) (p < 0.001) and 0-1 TF 30.1 (3.3) (p = 0.011) groups. The percentages of time that respondents experienced absenteeism (mean [SE] 21.6% [5.5%] vs. 13.4% [3.6%]; p = 0.022), presenteeism (mean [SE] 55.0% [8.3%] vs. 40.8% [6.5%]; p = 0.015), overall work impairment (mean [SE] 59.4% [5.6%] vs. 45.0% [4.4%]; p < 0.001), and activity impairment (mean [SE] 56.8% [1.0%] vs. 44.4% [0.9%]; p < 0.001) were significantly higher in the ≥2 TFs versus preventive-naive group. Emergency department visits (preventive-naive, p = 0.006; 0-1 TF, p = 0.008) and hospitalizations (p < 0.001 both) in the past 6 months were significantly higher in the ≥2 TFs group. Direct and indirect costs were significantly higher in the ≥2 TFs (mean [SE] $24,026 [3460]; $22,074 [20]) versus 0-1 TF ($10,897 [1636]; $17,965 [17]) and preventive-naive ($11,497 [1715]; $17,167 [17]) groups (p < 0.001 for all). Results were similar in the low-frequency EM group., Conclusions: In this NHWS analysis, individuals with more prior preventive TFs experienced significantly higher humanistic and economic burden regardless of HF., (© 2024 AbbVie and The Authors. Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Headache Society.)

Objective: To describe the impact of migraine on functioning based on comprehensive data collection, analysis, and reporting of patients' experiences., Background: Qualitative research conducted to understand patients' perspectives on living with migraine has often focused on narrow topics or specific groups of patients or has been selectively reported., Methods: Qualitative interviews with 71 participants were conducted during two concept elicitation studies as part of the Migraine Clinical Outcome Assessment System (MiCOAS) project, an FDA grant-funded program designed to develop a core set of patient-centered outcome measures for migraine clinical trials. Participants self-reported being diagnosed with migraine by a healthcare professional and participated in semi-structured qualitative interviews about their experiences with the symptoms and impacts of migraine. Interview transcripts were coded to identify and define concepts, which were then grouped into broad domains based on conceptual similarities., Results: A total of 66 concepts were identified: 12 for physical functioning, 16 for cognitive functioning, 10 for social role functioning, 19 for emotional and psychological functioning, and 9 related to migraine management. Participants described a complex and varied relationship between migraine attack symptoms and impacts on functioning. Impacts from migraine were further influenced by numerous contextual factors, such as people's individual social environments and the level of day-to-day demand for functioning they face., Conclusion: Findings showed that migraine impacted individual functioning in multiple ways and the nature of these impacts was dependent on social-contextual factors. The results are being used in the development of core measures designed to improve our understanding of the burden of migraine and the efficacy of migraine therapies. The results also offer new insights and raise new questions about migraine experience that can be used to guide future research., (© 2024 The Authors. Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Headache Society.)

Objective: To characterize the direct impact of monthly headache days (MHDs) on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in people with migraine and the potential mediating effects of anxiety, depression, and allodynia., Background: Although the general relationship between increased migraine frequency (i.e., MHDs) and reduced HRQoL is well established, the degree to which reduced HRQoL is due to a direct effect of increased MHDs or attributable to mediating factors remains uncertain., Methods: Cross-sectional baseline data from participants with migraine who completed the Core and Comorbidities/Endophenotypes modules in the 2012-2013 US Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) study, a longitudinal web-based survey study, were analyzed. The potential contribution of depression, anxiety, and/or allodynia to the observed effects of MHDs on HRQoL as measured by the Migraine-Specific Quality-of-Life Questionnaire version 2.1 (MSQ) was evaluated., Results: A total of 12,715 respondents were included in the analyses. The MSQ domain scores demonstrated progressive declines with increasing MHD categories (B = -1.23 to -0.60; p < 0.001). The observed HRQoL decrements associated with increasing MHDs were partially mediated by the presence of depression, anxiety, and allodynia. The MHD values predicted 24.0%-32.4% of the observed variation in the MSQ domains. Depression mediated 15.2%-24.3%, allodynia mediated 9.6%-16.1%, and anxiety mediated 2.3%-6.0% of the observed MHD effects on the MSQ., Conclusions: Increased MHD values were associated with lower MSQ scores; the impact of MHDs on the MSQ domain scores was partially mediated by the presence of depression, anxiety, and allodynia. MHDs remain the predominant driver of the MSQ variation; moreover, most of the variation in the MSQ remains unexplained by the variables we analyzed. Future longitudinal analyses and studies may help clarify the contribution of MHDs, comorbidities, and other factors to changes in HRQoL., (© 2023 The Authors. Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Headache Society.)

Background: There is renewed emphasis on including patients in determining, defining, and prioritizing outcomes for migraine treatment., Objectives: To obtain insights directly from people living with migraine on their priorities for treatment., Methods: A total of 40 qualitative interviews were conducted as part of the Migraine Clinical Outcome Assessment System project, a United States Food and Drug Administration grant-funded program to develop a core set of patient-centered outcome measures for migraine clinical trials. Interviews included a structured exercise in which participants rank-ordered pre-defined lists of potential benefits for acute and preventive migraine therapy. The 40 study participants who reported being diagnosed with migraine by a clinician ranked the benefits and explained their rationale., Results: Study participants consistently ranked either pain relief or absence of pain as their top priority for acute treatment. Relief/absence of other migraine symptoms and improved functioning were also prioritized. For preventive treatment, participants prioritized reductions in migraine frequency, symptom severity, and attack duration. Few differences were found between participants with episodic migraine and those with chronic migraine. However, participants with chronic migraine ranked "increased predictability of attacks" much higher than those with episodic migraine. Participants' rankings were influenced by prior expectations and experiences of migraine treatments, which caused many participants to deprioritize desired benefits as unrealistic. Participants also identified several additional priorities, including limited side-effects and reliable treatment efficacy in both acute and preventive treatments., Conclusion: The results showed the participants prioritized treatment benefits aligned with existing core clinical outcomes used in migraine research, but also valued benefits that are not typically assessed, such as predictability. Participants also deprioritized important benefits when they believed treatment was unlikely to deliver those outcomes., (© 2023 The Authors. Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Headache Society.)

Objective: To evaluate changes in interictal burden with galcanezumab versus placebo in patients with episodic (EM) or chronic migraine (CM)., Background: The disruptive effects of migraine occur both during attacks (ictal period) and between attacks (interictal period), affecting work, school, family, and social life. Migraine clinical trials typically assess ictal burden endpoints, neglecting interictal burden., Methods: CONQUER was a 3-month, double-blind study that randomized adult patients with EM or CM who had experienced failure of two to four standard-of-care migraine preventive medication categories to receive monthly galcanezumab (n = 232) or placebo (n = 230), followed by 3 months of open-label galcanezumab. The mean change in interictal burden, a secondary objective, was measured using the four-item Migraine Interictal Burden Scale (MIBS-4). The total score for MIBS-4 can range from zero to 12, with scores ≥5 indicating severe interictal burden. Post hoc analyses evaluated shifts in MIBS-4 severity categories and item-level improvement., Results: The MIBS-4 total score indicated severe interictal burden at baseline (mean [SD]: all patients, 5.5 [3.5]; EM, 5.0 [3.4]; CM, 6.2 [3.5]). Reductions in the MIBS-4 score were significantly greater with galcanezumab versus placebo at Month 3 (mean [SE]: all patients -1.9 [0.2] vs. -0.8 [0.2], p < 0.0001; EM, -1.8 [0.3] vs. -1.1 [0.3], p = 0.033; CM, -1.8 [0.4] vs. -0.3 [0.4], p < 0.001), with further improvement at Month 6 after all patients had received galcanezumab (mean [SE]: all patients, -2.4 [0.2] vs. -2.0 [0.2]; EM, -2.3 [0.3] vs. -2.2 [0.3]; CM, -2.1 [0.4] vs. -1.5 [0.4]). The percentage of patients with severe interictal burden decreased substantially for the galcanezumab-treated patients, from 59% (137/232) at baseline to 27% (58/217) at Month 6 (EM from 51% [70/137] to 23% [30/131]; CM from 71% [67/95] to 33% [28/86])., Conclusion: In addition to the known efficacy of galcanezumab in the ictal period, these findings suggest treatment with galcanezumab results in a significant reduction in interictal burden., (© 2023 Eli Lilly and Company and The Authors. Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Headache Society.)

Objectives: To capture patients' perspectives on migraine-related cognitive symptoms during pre-headache, headache, post-headache, and interictal periods., Background: Migraine-related cognitive symptoms are reported by people with migraine both during and between attacks. Associated with disability, they are increasingly viewed as a priority target for treatment. The Migraine Clinical Outcome Assessment System (MiCOAS) project is focused on developing a patient-centered core set of outcome measures for the evaluation of migraine treatments. The project focuses on incorporating the experience of people living with migraine and the outcomes most meaningful to them. This includes an examination of the presence and functional impact of migraine-related cognitive symptoms and their perceived impact on quality of life and disability., Methods: Forty individuals with self-reported medically diagnosed migraine were recruited via iterative purposeful sampling for semi-structured qualitative interviews conducted using audio-only web conferencing. Thematic content analysis was performed to identify key concepts around migraine-related cognitive symptoms. Recruitment continued until concept saturation was achieved., Results: Participants described symptoms consistent with migraine-related deficits in language/speech, sustained attention, executive function, and memory that manifest during pre-headache (36/40 [90%] reported ≥1 cognitive feature), headache (35/40 [88%] reported ≥1 cognitive feature), post-headache (27/40 [68%] reported ≥1 cognitive feature), and interictal periods (13/40 [33%] reported ≥1 cognitive feature). Among participants reporting cognitive symptoms during pre-headache, 32/40 (81%) endorsed 2-5 cognitive symptoms. Findings were similar during the headache phase. Participants reported language/speech problems consistent with, for example, impairments in receptive language, expressive language, and articulation. Issues with sustained attention included fogginess, confusion/disorientation, and trouble with concentration/focus. Deficits in executive function included difficulty processing information and reduced capacity for planning and decision-making. Memory issues were reported across all phases of the migraine attack., Conclusions: This patient-level qualitative study suggests that cognitive symptoms are common for persons with migraine, particularly in the pre-headache and headache phases. These findings highlight the importance of assessing and ameliorating these cognitive problems., (© 2023 American Headache Society.)

Objective: To investigate the links between adolescent migraine and comorbid and co-occurring conditions using a large, nationally representative longitudinal study., Background: Comorbidities and co-occurring conditions play an important role in the clinical treatment of individuals with migraine. Research in this area has focused largely on the adult population using cross-sectional data, but less is known about adolescents and how conditions may co-occur over time from a broader developmental perspective. The goals of this manuscript were to empirically evaluate the associations between adolescent migraine and several linked conditions and explore the relative timings of onset of these conditions from adolescence to adulthood., Methods: Data came from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health), a school-based study of the health-related behaviors and conditions of adolescents. The present study examined data from Wave 1 (W1, study years: 1994-1995), Wave 4 (W4, study years: 2008-2009), and Wave 5 (W5, study years: 2016-2018). Analyses and visual plots were used to evaluate potential links between parent-reported adolescent migraine status (PR-AdMig) at W1 and 15 medical conditions identified based on self-reported medical diagnoses (SR-MDs) at W4 and W5. Based on prior literature in adults, we identified 11 conditions predicted to be associated with PR-AdMig and four conditions predicted not to be associated with PR-AdMig. The analyses were exploratory and post hoc., Results: The total sample size pooling over all analyses was n = 13,786, but the wave-specific sample sizes differed due to missing data (W4 analyses, n = 12,692; W5 analyses, n = 10,340); 7243/13,786 (unweighted: 52.5%; weighted: 50.5%) of participants were female, 7640/13,786 (unweighted: 55.4%; weighted: 68.6%) were White, and 1580/13,786 (unweighted: 11.5%; weighted: 12.0%) had PR-AdMig. The average ages were 15.8 years at W1, 28.7 years at W4, and 37.8 years at W5. Findings showed that PR-AdMig was associated with anxiety/panic disorder (W4: PR-AdMig vs. Control weighted %: 17.1% vs. 12.6%, unadjusted odds ratio [OR] = 1.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.18-1.74, p = 0.0003; W5: 31.6% vs. 22.4%, OR = 1.60, 95% CI 1.28-2.02, p < 0.0001), asthma/chronic bronchitis/emphysema (W4: 20.0% vs. 14.7%, OR = 1.45, 95% CI 1.20-1.76, p < 0.001; W5: 21.0% vs. 14.6%, OR = 1.55, 95% CI 1.25-1.94, p < 0.001), attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (W4: 8.3% vs. 5.4%, OR = 1.58, 95% CI 1.18-2.10, p = 0.002), depression (W4: 23.7% vs. 15.4%, OR = 1.71, 95% CI 1.43-2.04, p < 0.0001; W5: 33.8% vs. 25.1%, OR = 1.53, 95% CI 1.22-1.90, p < 0.001), epilepsy/seizure disorder (W4: 2.2% vs. 1.2%, OR = 1.84, 95% CI 1.23-2.76, p = 0.004), migraine (W4: 38.8% vs. 11.9%, OR = 4.7, 95% CI 4.1-5.5, p < 0.001), post-traumatic stress disorder (W4: 4.1% vs. 2.8%, OR = 1.45, 95% CI 1.01-2.08, p = 0.042; W5: 11.3% vs. 7.1%, OR = 1.67, 95% CI 1.27-2.20, p < 0.001), and sleep apnea (W5: 11.0% vs. 7.6%, OR = 1.51, 95% CI 1.15-1.98, p = 0.003). Among theoretically unlinked conditions, only hepatitis C at W4 was shown to have a relationship with adolescent onset migraine (0.7% vs. 0.2%, OR = 3.63, 95% CI 1.32-10.0, p = 0.013). Visual plots suggested that the retrospective, self-report timing of onset of specific subsets of co-occurring conditions tended to group together over time., Conclusions: Consistent with the existing headache literature, results showed that adolescent migraine was associated with other medical and psychological conditions and visual plots suggested that there may be developmental patterns in the occurrence of migraine with other related conditions., (© 2023 American Headache Society.)

Objective: To evaluate the effect of eptinezumab on patient-reported outcomes in patients with chronic migraine (CM) and medication-overuse headache (MOH)., Background: MOH is a secondary headache disorder commonly occurring in patients with CM and associated with functional and psychological impairments. Medication overuse and monthly headache and migraine days were reduced with eptinezumab compared with placebo as published previously; however, these outcomes do not fully capture the burden of migraine and treatment effect., Methods: PROMISE-2 was a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in adults with CM. Patients were randomized (1:1:1) to receive eptinezumab 100 mg, eptinezumab 300 mg, or placebo (up to 2 doses, 12 weeks apart). Patients completed the following patient-reported outcomes: 6-item Headache Impact Test (HIT-6), Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), patient-identified most bothersome symptom (PI-MBS), and 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36)., Results: A total of 431 CM patients (139, 147, and 145 patients in the eptinezumab 100 mg, eptinezumab 300 mg, and placebo groups, respectively) had MOH diagnosed at screening (40.2% of the total PROMISE-2 population [n = 1072]). In CM with MOH patients, both doses of eptinezumab were associated with clinically meaningful improvements in mean HIT-6 total scores by week 4 and remained improved throughout the 24-week study. Responder rates for individual HIT-6 items were greater with eptinezumab than with placebo at all time points. At week 12, almost twice as many eptinezumab-treated patients indicated the PGIC was "much" or "very much" improved (58.5% [79/135, 100 mg] and 67.4% [95/147, 300 mg] vs. 35.8% [48/134, placebo]). Patients in the eptinezumab groups showed numerically greater improvements over placebo in the PI-MBS and SF-36 scores., Conclusions: This subgroup analysis in patients with CM/MOH at baseline suggests that eptinezumab treatment is associated with early, sustained, and clinically meaningful improvements in patient-reported outcomes., (© 2023 The Authors. Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Headache Society.)

Background: Stigma is increasingly recognized as an important social feature of living with migraine., Methods: Adults with migraine recruited from neurology offices completed the validated Stigma Scale for Chronic Illnesses 8-item version (SSCI-8); two outcome measures (the Migraine Disability Assessment [MIDAS] and the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire v 2.1 [MSQ]); and measures of allodynia (Allodynia Symptom Checklist [ASC-12]), pain cognition (Pain Catastrophizing Scale [PCS]), and psychiatric symptoms (Patient Reported Measurement Information System Anxiety [PROMIS-A] and Depression [PROMIS-D]). Pearson and Spearman correlations evaluated bivariate relationships, and linear (MSQ) and logistic (MIDAS Severe Disability, scores ≥21) regressions evaluated the unique variance associated with SSCI-8 beyond other study variables. Conditional process analysis evaluated mediation hypotheses between study variables., Results: Participants (n = 121) reported levels of stigma on par with other chronic illnesses (SSCI-8 M = 53.0, standard deviation [SD] = 7.8), with 25/127 (19.6%) reporting clinically significant levels of stigma (SSCI-8 T-score ≥ 60). Higher SSCI-8 scores were associated with higher monthly headache day frequency (r = 0.35), MIDAS (ρ = 0.41), ASC-12 (r = 0.24, p < 0.01), PCS (r = 0.46), both PROMIS-A (r = 0.43) and D (r = 0.42), and lower MSQ subscale scores (Role Restriction r = -0.50; Role Prevention r = -0.48; Emotion Function r = -0.50), all ps <0.001 unless otherwise noted. The SSCI-8 contributed significantly beyond migraine symptoms and other psychological factors for MSQ Emotion Function (5% unique variance) and MIDAS Severe Disability (6% of unique variance). The SSCI-8 mediated relationships between headache frequency and the MSQ subscales and MIDAS Severe Disability. The PCS mediated relationships between the SSCI-8 and MSQ subscales. The PROMIS-D mediated relationships between the SSCI-8 and MSQ Role Restriction and MSQ Role Prevention., Conclusions: Migraine stigma has medium to large associations with migraine outcomes and psychiatric symptoms and is independently associated with migraine disability and emotion-related quality of life. Migraine stigma is an important contributor to the relationship between headache frequency and migraine outcomes., (© 2022 American Headache Society.)

Objective: To identify predictors of acute treatment response for nonprescription (over-the-counter [OTC]) medications among people with migraine and develop improved models for predicting treatment response., Background: Pain freedom and sustained pain relief are important priorities in the acute treatment of migraine. OTC medications are widely used for migraine; however, it is not clear which treatment works best for each patient without going through the trial and error process., Methods: A prediction model development study was completed using the 2006 American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention Study survey, from participants who were aged ≥18, met criteria and headache day frequency for episodic migraine, did not take prescription medication for migraine, and used ≥1 of the following acute migraine medication classes: acetaminophen, aspirin, NSAIDs, or caffeine containing combination products (CCP). Two items from the Migraine Treatment Optimization Questionnaire were used to evaluate treatment response, adequate 2-h pain freedom (2hPF) and 24-h pain relief (24hPR), which were defined by a response to treatment ≥half the time at 2 h and 24 h post treatment, respectively. We identified predictors of adequate treatment response and developed models to predict probability of treatment response to each medication class., Results: The sample included 3852 participants (3038 [79.0%] females) with an average age of 45.0 years (SD = 12.8). Only 1602/3852 (41.6%) and 1718/3852 (44.6%) of the participants reported adequate 2hPF and 24hPR, respectively. Adequate treatment-response was significantly predicted by lower average headache pain intensity, less cutaneous allodynia, and lower depressive symptom scores. Lower migraine symptom severity was predictive of adequate 2hPF and fewer monthly headache days was predictive of adequate 24hPR. Among participants reporting OTC monotherapy (n = 2168, 56.3%) individuals taking CCP were more likely to have adequate 2hPF (OR = 1.55, 95% CI 1.23-1.95) and 24hPR (OR = 1.79, 95% CI 1.18-1.88) in comparison with those taking acetaminophen. Predictive models were modestly predictive of responders to OTC medications (c-statistics = 0.65; 95% CI 0.62-0.68)., Conclusion: These results show that response to acute migraine treatments is not optimized in the majority of people with migraine treating with OTC medications. Predictive models can improve our ability to choose the best therapeutic option for individuals with episodic migraine and increase the proportion of patients with optimized response to treatments., (© 2022 American Headache Society.)

Objective: To assess the utility of the novel patient-identified (PI) most bothersome symptom (MBS) measure from PROMISE-2, a phase 3 trial of eptinezumab for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine., Background: Relief of bothersome migraine symptoms can influence satisfaction with treatment and therapeutic persistence. Understanding the impact of preventive treatment on a PI-MBS could improve clinical decision-making., Methods: In PROMISE-2, patients with chronic migraine received eptinezumab 100, 300 mg, or placebo administered intravenously every 12 weeks for up to 2 doses (n = 1072). PI-MBS was an exploratory outcome requiring each patient to self-report their MBS in response to an open-ended question. At baseline and week 12, patients rated overall improvement in PI-MBS. The relationships among PI-MBS at week 12 and change in monthly migraine days (MMDs) from baseline to month 3 (weeks 9-12), Patient Global Impression of Change at week 12, and changes from baseline to week 12 in the 6-item Headache Impact Test total, EuroQol 5-dimensions 5-levels visual analog scale, and 36-item Short-Form Health Survey component scores were assessed., Results: Treatment groups had similar baseline characteristics and reported a total of 23 unique PI-MBS, most commonly light sensitivity (200/1072, 18.7%), nausea/vomiting (162/1072, 15.1%), and pain with activity (147/1072, 13.7%). Improvements in PI-MBS at week 12 correlated with changes in MMDs (ρ = -0.49; p < 0.0001) and other patient-reported outcomes. Controlling for changes in MMDs, PI-MBS improvement predicted other patient-reported outcomes in expected directions. The magnitude of the standardized mean differences between placebo and active treatment for PI-MBS were 0.31 (p < 0.0001 vs. placebo) and 0.54 (p < 0.0001 vs. placebo) for eptinezumab 100 and 300 mg, respectively., Conclusions: Improvement in PI-MBS at week 12 was associated with improvement in other patient-reported outcome measures, and PI-MBS may be an important patient-centered measure of treatment benefits in patients with chronic migraine., (© 2022 The Authors. Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Headache Society.)

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is an ongoing global health crisis that has had a range of impacts on people living with migraine., Methods: Qualitative interviews performed as part of the Migraine Clinical Outcome Assessment System project, a multi-stage Food and Drug Administration-grant funded program to develop a patient-centered core set of outcome measures for use in migraine clinical trials, offered an opportunity to explore the experience of living with migraine during the pandemic as well as to examine whether migraine treatment priorities, symptoms, and associated disability changed due to the pandemic. Semi-structured interviews were conducted in the United States between the summer and fall of 2020 with 40 individuals with self-reported, medically diagnosed migraine who self-reported that they had not tested positive for or been diagnosed with COVID-19., Results: Seventy percent (n = 28) of the sample reported ≥1 pandemic-related impact on their life with migraine. Fourteen participants reported both positive and negative impacts, twelve reported negative impacts only, and two reported positive impacts only. Among those reporting ≥1 pandemic-related impact, nine participants (32%) reported more frequent and five (17%) reported less frequent migraine attacks. Other negative impacts included interrupted medical care (n = 9; 32%), and greater stress (n = 13; 46%). The most frequent positive impact reported was greater access to health care (n = 8; 29%). Ictal and interictal symptoms were not noted to change due to the pandemic, but some respondents reported less disability due to increased flexibility of schedules and reduced expectations. Treatment priorities did not change due to the pandemic., Conclusion: The global COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in both negative and positive impacts for people living with migraine. Lessons to be considered when moving into a post-pandemic world include benefits of and satisfaction with telehealth and the benefits and importance of healthy lifestyle habits and flexibility such as improved sleep, reduced stress, and fewer social expectations., (© 2022 American Headache Society.)

Objective: The purpose of this study was to examine changes in the functional impact of migraine following treatment with erenumab, as measured by the Migraine Functional Impact Questionnaire (MFIQ)., Background: The MFIQ, a novel patient-reported outcome (PRO) measuring the impact of migraine on four domains (physical function, social function, and emotional function [PF, SF, and EF]; usual activities [UAs]) and a single item assessing overall impact on UA, was included in phase III trials evaluating erenumab 70 and 140 mg monthly for migraine prevention among people with episodic migraine (EM)., Methods: In the ARISE study, 577 patients with EM were randomized to erenumab 70 mg or placebo. In the STRIVE study, 955 patients with EM were randomized to erenumab, 70 mg or 140 mg or placebo. Pairwise comparisons of least-squares mean (LSM) change from baseline in MFIQ scores (with associated 95% confidence interval [CI]) were assessed for each active treatment versus placebo., Results: In ARISE, greater reductions from baseline to month 3 were observed for 70 mg versus placebo for PF (LSM [95% CI]: -3.2 [-6.4 to -0.1]; p = 0.046) and EF (-4.0 [-7.3 to -0.7]; p = 0.019) domain scores. In STRIVE, between-group differences also reflected reductions from baseline to the average of months 4-6 that favored erenumab on all four MFIQ domain scores. Reductions in impact for 70 mg compared to placebo were -4.3 (95% CI: -6.8 to -1.7; p < 0.001) for PF, -4.0 (-6.3 to -1.7; p < 0.001) for UA, -3.7 (-6.1 to -1.2; p = 0.003) for SF, and -5.3 (-7.9 to -2.6; p < 0.001) for EF domain scores. Improvements were also observed for 140 mg versus placebo with between-group differences of -5.7 (95% CI: -8.2 to -3.2; p < 0.001) in PF, -5.1 (-7.5 to -2.8; p < 0.001) in UA, -5.0 (-7.4 to -2.6; p < 0.001) in SF, and -7.2 (-9.9 to -4.5; p < 0.001) in EF domain scores. There were also greater improvements in the overall impact on UA score for 70 mg (LSM [95% CI]: -4.3 [-7.0 to -1.7]; p = 0.001) and 140 mg (-5.3 [-8.5 to -3.2]; p < 0.001) versus placebo., Conclusions: The MFIQ measures the frequency of impacts and level of difficulty on multiple functional domains that provide a more complete picture of the effects of migraine. MFIQ scores showed that in comparison with placebo, patients treated with erenumab had greater reductions in the functional impact of migraine, providing insight into treatment benefits that extend beyond improvements in clinical status and health-related quality of life previously reported based on clinical end points and other PROs., (© 2022 American Headache Society.)

Objective: The ObserVational survey of the Epidemiology, tReatment and Care of MigrainE (OVERCOME; United States) study is a multicohort, longitudinal web survey that assesses symptomatology, consulting, diagnosis, treatment, and impact of migraine in the United States., Background: Regularly updating population-based views of migraine in the United States provides a method for assessing the quality of ongoing migraine care and identifying unmet needs., Methods: The OVERCOME (US) 2018 migraine cohort involved: (I) creating a demographically representative sample of US adults using quota sampling (n = 97,478), (II) identifying people with active migraine in the past year via a validated migraine diagnostic questionnaire and/or self-reported medical diagnosis of migraine (n = 24,272), and (III) assessing consultation, diagnosis, and treatment of migraine (n = 21,143). The current manuscript evaluated whether those with low frequency episodic migraine (LFEM; 0-3 monthly headache days) differed from other categories on outcomes of interest., Results: Among the migraine cohort (n = 21,143), 19,888 (94.1%) met our International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition-based case definition of migraine and 12,905 (61.0%) self-reported a medical diagnosis of migraine. Respondents' mean (SD) age was 42.2 (15.0) years; 15,697 (74.2%) were women. Having at least moderate disability was common (n = 8965; 42.4%) and around half (n = 10,783; 51.0%) had consulted a medical professional for migraine care in the past year. Only 4792 (22.7%) of respondents were currently using a triptan. Overall, 8539 (40.4%) were eligible for migraine preventive medication and 3555 (16.8%) were currently using migraine preventive medication. Those with LFEM differed from moderate and high frequency episodic migraine and chronic migraine on nearly all measures of consulting, diagnosis, and treatment., Conclusion: The OVERCOME (US) 2018 cohort revealed slow but steady progress in diagnosis and preventive treatment of migraine. However, despite significant impact among the population, many with migraine have unmet needs related to consulting for migraine, migraine diagnosis, and getting potentially beneficial migraine treatment. Moreover, it demonstrated the heterogeneity and varying unmet needs within episodic migraine., (© 2022 Eli Lilly and Company. Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Headache Society.)

Background: Migraine is associated with depression as well as negative impact on quality of life and work productivity. Fremanezumab, a fully humanized monoclonal antibody (IgG2Δa), selectively targets the calcitonin gene-related peptide and has proven efficacy for the preventive treatment of migraine., Objective: In this open-label extension (OLE) of the phase 3b FOCUS study, we assessed patient-reported outcomes (PROs) over time., Methods: Patients with episodic migraine (EM) and chronic migraine (CM) completing the 12-week, double-blind (DB) period of the FOCUS trial entered the 12-week OLE and received three monthly doses of fremanezumab (225 mg). PROs included the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life (MSQoL) questionnaire (role function-restrictive [RFR], role function-preventive [RFP], and emotional function [EF] domains), EuroQol-5-Dimension-5-Level (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire, Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) assessment, Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) questionnaire, and 9-Item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9)., Results: A total of 838 patients were randomized in the DB period, 807 entered the OLE at 3 months, and 772 were still enrolled at 6 months. At 6 months, patients in the quarterly fremanezumab, monthly fremanezumab, and placebo DB randomization groups, respectively, reported improvements in RFR (mean [standard deviation] change from baseline: 24.6 [21.9]; 22.9 [21.3]; 20.8 [26.5]), RFP (19.6 [20.0]; 18.3 [19.7]; 16.0 [19.9]), and EF (22.5 [24.2]; 19.1 [23.6]; 17.2 [24.7]) domains of the MSQoL questionnaire, the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire (8.0 [19.6]; 7.3 [21.1]; 6.6 [21.0]), all four domains of the WPAI questionnaire, and the PHQ-9 (-2.4 [5.3]; -1.6 [5.5]; -2.0 [4.9]); 77.1% (209/271), 75.4% (205/272), and 68.8% (181/263) of patients were identified as PGIC responders., Conclusion: Among patients with EM or CM and prior inadequate response to multiple migraine-preventive medication classes, progressive improvements in MSQoL, depression, and work productivity were achieved during 6 months of fremanezumab treatment., (© 2021 The Authors. Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Headache Society.)