Search

Background: Adults with migraine experience substantial reductions in quality of life during and in-between migraine attacks. Clinical and regulatory guidelines encourage the inclusion of patient reported outcomes for the evaluation of benefits of interventions for migraine.Methods: The conceptual framework and items for a new patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument, the Migraine Physical Function Impact Diary (MPFID), were developed using scientific methods recommended to ensure content validity of PRO instruments. The MPFID was developed to measure the impact of migraine on physical functioning based on themes raised in concept elicitation (CE) interviews (conducted previously) with adults with migraine. Cognitive interviews were conducted with adults with migraine to further explore content validity. The instrument was modified following an interim analysis of a first round of cognitive interviews, to assess comprehensiveness and clarity of items, instructions, and response options. Refinements were subsequently tested in additional cognitive interviews.Results: The conceptual framework included impacts on physical functioning experienced by most adults with migraine and deemed clinically relevant for measuring the outcome of an intervention for migraine. Concepts in the framework included the impact of migraine on physical impairments (acts) and ability to complete day-to-day activities and perform everyday activities (tasks). MPFID items were generated to evaluate functioning over the past 24 h and to collect data daily, to capture experiences on days with migraine as well as the days in-between migraines. Items asked about needing to rest or lie down; ability to get out of bed, stand up, bend over, walk, perform household chores, do tasks outside the home, keep routines or schedules, get ready for the day, do activities that require concentration or clear thinking; difficulty moving head and body, doing activities requiring physical effort; avoiding interacting with others. Initial modifications based on the first round of cognitive interviews (n = 8) included clarifying instructions, updating three items to enhance specificity and clarity, and revising one item to include gender-neutral language. The second round of interviews (n = 9) confirmed acceptability of revisions and supported content validity.Conclusions: The results provide qualitative evidence supporting the content validity of the MPFID for evaluating outcomes of interventions for migraine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Migraine is characterized by headache with symptoms such as intense pain, nausea, vomiting, photophobia, and phonophobia that significantly impact individuals' lives. The objective of this study was to develop a strategy to measure outcomes from the patients' perspectives for use in evaluating preventive treatments for migraine. Methods: This study used a multi-stage process. The first stage included concept identification research through literature review, patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument content review, and clinician interviews, and resulted in a list of concepts relevant to understand the migraine experience. These results informed the design of the subsequent concept elicitation stage that involved qualitative interviews of adults with migraine to understand their experiences. Information from these two stages was used to develop a conceptual disease model (CDM) of the migraine experience. This CDM was used to identify concepts of interest (COI) to evaluate patient-relevant outcomes for assessing treatment benefit of migraine prophylactics. In the final stage, existing PRO instruments were reviewed to assess coverage of concepts related to the selected COI. Results: Nine articles from 563 screened abstracts underwent full review to identify migraine-relevant concepts. This concept identification and subsequent concept elicitation interviews (N=32; 21 episodic migraine; 11 chronic migraine) indicated that people with migraine experience difficulties during and between migraine attacks with considerable day-to-day variability in the impact on movement, ability to perform every day and social activities, and emotion. The CDM organized concepts as proximal to and more distal from disease-defining migraine symptoms, and was used to identify impact on physical function as the key COI. The item level review of PRO instruments revealed that none of the existing PRO instruments were suitable to collect data on impact of migraine on physical functioning, to evaluate treatment benefit. Conclusions: The impact of migraine includes impairments in functioning during and between migraine attacks that vary considerably on a daily basis. There is a need for novel PRO instruments that reflect patients' migraine experience to assess treatment benefit of migraine prophylactics. These instruments must evaluate the concepts identified and be able to capture the variability of patients' experience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To assess rates of traversing barriers to care to access optimal clinical outcomes in people with migraine internationally., Background: People in need of medical care for migraine should consult a health care professional knowledgeable in migraine management, obtain an accurate diagnosis, and receive an individualized treatment plan, which includes scientific society guideline-recommended treatments where appropriate., Methods: The Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes-International (CaMEO-I) Study was a cross-sectional, web-based survey conducted from July 2021 through March 2022 in Canada, France, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States (US). Respondents who met modified International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition, criteria for migraine and had Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS) scores of ≥ 6 (i.e., mild, moderate, or severe disability) were deemed to need medical care and were included in this analysis. Minimally effective treatment required that participants were currently consulting a health care professional for headache (barrier 1), reported an accurate diagnosis (barrier 2), and reported use of minimally appropriate pharmacologic treatment (barrier 3; based on American Headache Society 2021 Consensus Statement recommendations). Proportions of respondents who successfully traversed each barrier were calculated, and chi-square tests were used to assess overall difference among countries., Results: Among 14,492 respondents with migraine, 8,330 had MIDAS scores of ≥ 6, were deemed in need of medical care, and were included in this analysis. Current headache consultation was reported by 35.1% (2926/8330) of respondents. Compared with the US, consultation rates and diagnosis rates were statistically significantly lower in all other countries except France where they were statistically significantly higher. Total appropriate treatment rates were also statistically significantly lower in all other countries compared with the US except France, which did not differ from the US. All 3 barriers were traversed by only 11.5% (955/8330) of respondents, with differences among countries (P < 0.001)., Conclusions: Of people with migraine in need of medical care for migraine, less than 15% traverse all 3 barriers to care. Although rates of consultation, diagnosis, and treatment differed among countries, improvements are needed in all countries studied to reduce the global burden of migraine., Trial Registration: NA., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Migraine is a disabling neurologic disease that can fluctuate over time in severity, frequency, and acute medication use. Harris Poll Migraine Report Card was a US population-based survey to ascertain quantifiable distinctions amongst individuals with current versus previous high-frequency headache/migraine and acute medication overuse (HFM+AMO). The objective of this report is to compare self-reported experiences in the migraine journey of adults with HFM+AMO to those who previously experienced HFM+AMO but currently have a sustained reduction in headache/migraine frequency and acute medication use., Methods: An online survey was available to a general population panel of adults (≥18 years) with migraine per the ID Migraine™ screener. Respondents were classified into "current HFM+AMO" (within the last few months had ≥8 headache days/month and ≥10 days/month of acute medication use; n=440) or "previous HFM+AMO" (previously had HFM+AMO, but within the last few months had ≤7 headache days/month and ≤9 days/month of acute medication use; n=110). Survey questions pertained to demographics, diagnosis, living with migraine, healthcare provider (HCP) communication, and treatment., Results: Participants in the current HFM+AMO group had 15.2 monthly headache days and 17.4 days of monthly acute medication use in last few months compared to 4.2 and 4.1 days for the previous HFM+AMO group, respectively. Overall, current preventive pharmacologic treatment use was low (15-16%; P>0.1 for current vs previous) in both groups. Previous HFM+AMO respondents reported better current acute treatment optimization. More respondents with current (80%) than previous HFM+AMO (66%) expressed concern with their current health (P<0.05). More than one-third of both groups wished their HCP better understood their mental/emotional health (current 37%, previous 35%; P>0.1 for current vs previous) and 47% (current) to 54% (previous) of respondents worried about asking their HCP too many questions (P>0.1 for current vs previous)., Conclusion: Apart from optimization of acute medication, medical interventions did not significantly differentiate between the current and previous HFM+AMO groups. Use of preventive pharmacological medication was low in both groups. Adults with current HFM+AMO more often had health concerns, yet both groups expressed concerns of disease burden. Optimization of acute and preventive medication and addressing mental/emotional health concerns of patients are areas where migraine care may impact outcomes regardless of their disease burden., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Individuals with migraine frequently experience pre- and post-headache symptoms. This analysis aimed to characterize the relative frequency and burden of pre- and post-headache symptoms in people with migraine using data collected through the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes - International Study., Methods: This cross-sectional, observational, web-based survey was conducted in 2021-2022 in Canada, France, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Respondents who met modified International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition, criteria were offered the opportunity to participate. Information collected included migraine-related disability, depression/anxiety symptoms, cutaneous allodynia, activity limitations, and acute treatment optimization. Respondents indicated how often they had pre- or post-headache symptoms using a 5-point scale, ranging from 0 to 4, with a rating of 2 or higher classified as a pre- or post-headache symptom case. Modeling was used to examine relationships with monthly headache days (MHDs) and activity limitations during pre-headache and post-headache phases., Results: Among a total of 14,492 respondents, pre-headache symptoms were reported by 66.9%, while post-headache symptoms were reported by 60.2%. Both pre-headache and post-headache symptoms were reported by 49.5% of respondents, only pre-headache by 17.4%, only post-headache by 10.7%, and neither pre- nor post-headache symptoms by 22.4%. Compared with respondents who experienced only pre- or post-headache symptoms, respondents who experienced both pre- and post-headache symptoms had the highest rates of 4-7, 8-14, and ≥ 15 monthly headache days (23.1%, 14.1%, and 10.9%, respectively). Of respondents with both pre- and post-headache symptoms, 58.5% reported moderate-to-severe disability, 47.7% reported clinically significant symptoms of depression, 49.0% reported clinically significant symptoms of anxiety, and 63.8% reported cutaneous allodynia with headache (ASC-12). Moderate-to-severe activity limitations were reported during the pre-headache (29.5%) and post-headache phases (27.2%). For all outcomes modeled, after controlling for covariates, having pre-headache symptoms, post-headache symptoms, or both were associated with worse outcomes than having neither., Conclusions: Pre- and post-headache phases of migraine are common, carry unrecognized burden, and may be a target for treatment., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Data are limited regarding the combined impact of headache frequency and failure of preventive medication (efficacy and/or tolerability) on the humanistic/economic burden of migraine., Methods: A retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of 2020 National Health and Wellness Survey (NHWS) data was conducted. An opt-in online survey identified adults in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and United Kingdom with self-reported physician-diagnosed migraine. Participants with ≥ 4 monthly headache days (MHDs) were stratified by prior preventive medication use/failure (preventive naive; 0-1 failure; ≥ 2 failures). Quality-of-life and economic outcomes were compared among groups using generalized linear modeling., Results: Among individuals with ≥ 4 MHDs (n = 1106), the NHWS identified 298 (27%) with ≥ 2 failures, 308 (28%) with 0-1 failure, and 500 (45%) as preventive naive. Individuals with ≥ 2 failures versus preventive-naive individuals had significantly lower scores on the 12-Item Short Form Survey Physical Component Summary (42.2 vs 44.1; P < 0.005), numerically higher scores on the Mental Component Summary (39.5 vs 38.5; P = 0.145), significantly higher scores on the Migraine Disability Assessment (39.1 vs 34.0; P < 0.05), and significantly higher prevalence of depression symptoms (62% vs 47%; P < 0.001) and anxiety symptoms (42% vs 31%; P < 0.01). The ≥ 2 failures group versus the preventive-naive group also had significantly more functional impairment as assessed by mean numbers of migraine-specific missed work days (7.8 vs 4.3) and household activities days (14.3 vs 10.6) in the past 6 months (P < 0.001) as well as the prevalence of absenteeism (19% vs 13%), overall work impairment (53% vs 42%), and activity impairment (53% vs 47%) (all P < 0.05). Emergency department visits (0.7 vs 0.5; P = 0.001) and hospitalizations (0.5 vs 0.3; P < 0.001) in the past 6 months were significantly higher in the ≥ 2 failures group versus the preventive-naive group, while indirect costs (€13,720 vs €11,282) and the proportion of individuals with non-adherence during the past 7 days (73% vs 64%) were numerically higher., Conclusions: Increased burden, quality-of-life impairment, and functional impairment exist among individuals with migraine experiencing ≥ 4 MHDs and more treatment failures. While cause and directionality cannot be determined, these results suggest the need for effective preventive migraine treatments., (© 2023. Springer-Verlag Italia S.r.l., part of Springer Nature.)

Background: The benefits of preventive treatment on the effectiveness of migraine management have rarely been examined. This post hoc analysis investigated the impact of eptinezumab on the optimization of acute medication effectiveness using the 4-item Migraine Treatment Optimization Questionnaire (mTOQ-4) to measure acute medication optimization over 4 weeks post-infusion., Methods: RELIEF was a 12-week, phase 3, multicenter, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial conducted in patients aged 18-75 years with a ≥ 1-year history of migraine and 4-15 migraine days per month in the 3 months prior to screening. Patients were randomized 1:1 to a 30-min infusion of eptinezumab 100 mg or placebo within 1-6 h of a qualifying migraine attack. The mTOQ-6 and 6-item Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) were administered at screening visit and week 4. From the mTOQ-6, we calculated the mTOQ-4 using the following items: "2-h pain free," "24-h relief," "able to plan," and "feeling in control" to measure acute medication optimization., Results: A total of 238 patients received eptinezumab 100 mg and 226 provided week 4 data; 242 received placebo and 232 provided week 4 data. In the eptinezumab arm, the proportion of patients with moderate/maximal optimization increased from 31.4% at baseline to 58.0% (26.6 percentage point increase) at week 4. The corresponding proportions in the placebo group were 40.5% to 50.4% (9.9 percentage point increase). Eptinezumab treatment was associated with numerically larger improvements in HIT-6 at week 4. Relative improvements with eptinezumab vs. placebo from baseline to week 4 in HIT-6 were greater in those with poor treatment optimization at baseline., Conclusions: In comparison with placebo, treatment with eptinezumab was associated with improvements in acute medication optimization as measured by mTOQ and reductions in headache impact, as measured by HIT-6. These benefits were greater in those with poor acute treatment optimization prior to preventive treatment with eptinezumab., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04152083 ., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: A clinical ability to describe the response trajectory of patients receiving preventive migraine treatment could expedite and improve therapeutic management decisions. This post hoc analysis of the PROMISE-2 study evaluated the consistency and predictive power of Month 1 treatment response on later response in patients with chronic migraine., Methods: PROMISE-2 was a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that randomized adults with chronic migraine to eptinezumab 100 mg, 300 mg, or placebo administered IV every 12 weeks for up to 24 weeks (2 infusions over 6 study months). Migraine responder rates (MRRs) were calculated from monthly migraine days over 4-week intervals compared with baseline. Patients were grouped by MRR during Month 1 (< 25%, 25-< 50%, 50-< 75%, and ≥ 75%), with the number of subsequent study months (Months 2-6) with ≥50% and ≥ 75% MRR calculated in each subgroup. A similar analysis was conducted using Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) rating to define Month 1 subgroups (very much improved, much improved, minimally improved, and no change/worse) and rates of very much improved or much improved PGIC during Months 2-6., Results: In the eptinezumab 100 mg, 300 mg, and placebo groups, respectively, 194/356 (54.5%), 212/350 (60.6%), and 132/366 (36.1%) patients were ≥ 50% migraine responders during Month 1. More eptinezumab-treated patients were ≥ 75% migraine responders (100 mg, 110/356 [30.9%]; 300 mg, 129/350 [36.9%]; placebo, 57/366 [15.6%]) and more placebo-treated patients were < 25% migraine responders (eptinezumab 100 mg, 103/356 [28.9%]; 300 mg, 80/350 [22.9%]; placebo, 153/366 [41.8%]). Among patients who achieved ≥75% migraine response in Month 1, more than one-third attained ≥75% migraine response for all 5 subsequent study months and more than two-thirds achieved ≥75% migraine response for ≥3 months. More than two-thirds of those in the very much improved (PGIC) subgroup at Month 1 were much or very much improved for all 5 subsequent months., Conclusions: In this post hoc analysis of data from PROMISE-2, more eptinezumab-treated than placebo-treated patients were early (Month 1) responders, and most early responders went on to achieve a high level of response for at least half of the 24-week treatment period. Potential for later response in early non-responders was also observed., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02974153 ; registered November 23, 2016., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Demonstrating therapeutic value from the patient perspective is important in patient-centered migraine management. The objective of this study was to investigate the impact of eptinezumab, a preventive migraine treatment, on patient-reported headache impact, acute medication optimization, and perception of disease change when initiated during a migraine attack., Methods: RELIEF was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted between 2019 and 2020 in adults with ≥1-year history of migraine and 4-15 migraine days per month in the 3 months prior to screening. Patients were randomized (1:1) to a 30-min infusion of eptinezumab 100 mg or placebo within 1-6 h of a qualifying migraine attack onset. The 6-item Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) and 6-item Migraine Treatment Optimization Questionnaire (mTOQ-6) were administered at baseline and week 4, and the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) at week 4. A post hoc analysis of these measures was conducted in patients who reported headache pain freedom at 2 h after infusion start., Results: Of 480 patients enrolled and treated, 476 completed the study and are included in this analysis. Mean baseline HIT-6 total scores indicated severe headache impact (eptinezumab, 65.1; placebo, 64.8). At week 4, the eptinezumab-treated group demonstrated clinically meaningful improvement in HIT-6 total score compared with placebo (mean change from baseline: eptinezumab, - 8.7; placebo, - 4.5; mean [95% CI] difference from placebo: - 4.2 [- 5.75, - 2.63], P < .0001), with greater reductions in each item score vs placebo (P < .001 all comparisons). Change in HIT-6 total score in the subgroup with 2-h headache pain freedom was - 13.8 for the eptinezumab group compared with - 4.9 for the placebo group. mTOQ-6 total score mean change from baseline favored eptinezumab (change, 2.1) compared with placebo (1.2; mean [95% CI] difference: 0.9 [0.3, 1.5], P < .01). More eptinezumab-treated patients rated PGIC as much or very much improved than placebo patients (59.3% vs 25.9%)., Conclusions: When administered during a migraine attack, eptinezumab significantly improved patient-reported outcomes after 4 weeks compared with placebo, with particularly pronounced effects in patients reporting headache pain freedom at 2 h after infusion start., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04152083 . November 5, 2019., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: The purpose of this narrative review is to examine the literature investigating a causal relationship between stress and migraine and evaluate its implications for managing migraine., Methods: PubMed, PsycINFO and CINAHL were searched from 1988 to August 2021, identifying 2223 records evaluating the relationship between stress and migraine. Records were systematically screened. All potentially relevant records were thematically categorized into six mechanistic groups. Within each group the most recent reports providing new insights were cited., Results: First, studies have demonstrated an association of uncertain causality between high stress loads from stressful life events, daily hassles or other sources, and the incidence of new-onset migraine. Second, major stressful life events seem to precede the transformation from episodic to chronic migraine. Third, there is some evidence for changes in levels of stress as a risk factor for migraine attacks. Research also suggests there may be a reversed causality or that stress-trigger patterns are too individually heterogeneous for any generalized causality. Fourth, migraine symptom burden seems to increase in a setting of stress, partially driven by psychiatric comorbidity. Fifth, stress may induce sensitization and altered cortical excitability, partially explaining attack triggering, development of chronic migraine, and increased symptom burden including interictal symptom burden such as allodynia, photophobia or anxiety. Finally, behavioral interventions and forecasting models including stress variables seem to be useful in managing migraine., Conclusion: The exact causal relationships in which stress causes incidence, chronification, migraine attacks, or increased burden of migraine remains unclear. Several individuals benefit from stress-oriented therapies, and such therapies should be offered as an adjuvant to conventional treatment and to those with a preference. Further understanding the relationship between stress, migraine and effective therapeutic options is likely to be improved by characterizing individual patterns of stress and migraine, and may in turn improve therapeutics., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: The long-term safety and efficacy of fremanezumab were evaluated in a 52-week extension study (NCT02638103). Patient satisfaction with fremanezumab, dosing preferences, and patient-reported outcomes were assessed in a subpopulation who completed the extension study and consented to a follow-up questionnaire., Methods: In the extension study (N = 1842), adults with migraine were randomized to quarterly or monthly fremanezumab. After completing active treatment, patients answered a survey evaluating patient satisfaction, treatment and dosing preferences, and changes in patient-reported outcomes., Results: Of the 557 patients who could have been contacted upon completing the extension study, 302 consented and 253 completed the survey. The mean (standard deviation) satisfaction rating for fremanezumab was 6.1 (1.4; 1 = "extremely dissatisfied" to 7 = "extremely satisfied"). Most patients (175 [69.2%]) preferred quarterly over monthly fremanezumab dosing. Among patients taking antiepileptics (most common class of prior preventive medication; n = 130), 91.5% preferred fremanezumab. Patients reported improvements in anxiety (74 [67.9%]), sleep quality (143 [56.5%]), and quality of time spent with others (210 [83.0%]) with fremanezumab., Conclusion: In this study, treatment satisfaction with fremanezumab was high, most patients preferred quarterly fremanezumab dosing, and fremanezumab was generally preferred to prior preventive medications., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02638103 (HALO LTS), registered December 22, 2015.

Background: Migraine has many presumed comorbidities which have rarely been compared between samples with and without migraine. Examining the association between headache pain intensity and monthly headache day (MHD) frequency with migraine comorbidities is novel and adds to our understanding of migraine comorbidity., Methods: The MAST Study is a prospective, web-based survey that identified US population samples of persons with migraine (using modified International Classification of Headache Disorders-3 beta criteria) and without migraine. Eligible migraine participants averaged ≥1 MHDs over the prior 3 months. Comorbidities "confirmed by a healthcare professional diagnosis" were endorsed by respondents from a list of 21 common cardiovascular, neurologic, psychiatric, sleep, respiratory, dermatologic, pain and medical comorbidities. Multivariable binary logistic regression calculated odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals for each condition between the two groups adjusting for sociodemographics. Modeling within the migraine cohort assessed rates of conditions as a function of headache pain intensity, MHD frequency, and their combination., Results: Analyses included 15,133 people with migraine (73.0% women, 77.7% White, mean age 43 years) and 77,453 controls (46.4% women, 76.8% White, mean age 52 years). People with migraine were significantly (P < 0.001) more likely to report insomnia (OR 3.79 [3.6, 4.0]), depression (OR 3.18 [3.0, 3.3]), anxiety (OR 3.18 [3.0 3.3]), gastric ulcers/GI bleeding (OR 3.11 [2.8, 3.5]), angina (OR 2.64 [2.4, 3.0]) and epilepsy (OR 2.33 [2.0, 2.8]), among other conditions. Increasing headache pain intensity was associated with comorbidities related to inflammation (psoriasis, allergy), psychiatric disorders (depression, anxiety) and sleep conditions (insomnia). Increasing MHD frequency was associated with increased risk for nearly all conditions and most prominent among those with comorbid gastric ulcers/GI bleeding, diabetes, anxiety, depression, insomnia, asthma and allergies/hay fever., Conclusions: In regression models controlled for sociodemographic variables, all conditions studied were reported more often by those with migraine. Whether entered into the models separately or together, headache pain intensity and MHD frequency were associated with increased risk for many conditions. Future work is required to understand the causal sequence of relationships (direct causality, reverse causality, shared underlying predisposition), the potential confounding role of healthcare professional consultation and treatment, and potential detection bias.

Background: Migraine is recognized as the second leading cause of disability globally. Lasmiditan is a novel, selective serotonin 5-HT 1F receptor agonist developed for acute treatment of migraine. Here we analyzed effects of lasmiditan on migraine disability assessed with the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) scale for interim data from a long-term safety study., Methods: Completers of two single-attack parent studies were offered participation in the 1 year GLADIATOR study, that randomized participants to treatment with lasmiditan 100 mg or 200 mg taken as needed for migraine attacks of at least moderate severity. Changes in MIDAS were modeled using a mixed model repeated measures analysis., Results: The sample included 1978 patients who received ≥1 lasmiditan dose and were followed for a median of 288 days. Baseline mean MIDAS scores for the lasmiditan 100-mg and 200-mg groups were 29.4 and 28.9, respectively, indicating severe migraine-related disability. Relative to baseline, MIDAS total scores were significantly lower at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months for both dose groups. At 12 months, changes in MIDAS scores were - 12.5 and - 12.2 for lasmiditan 100 mg and 200 mg, respectively, with 49% and 53% of patients, respectively, achieving at least a 50% decrease in MIDAS total score. Statistically significant improvements were also seen for work and/or school absenteeism and presenteeism, monthly headache days, and mean headache pain intensity at all time points up to 1 year. Findings for patients who completed all visits versus those dropping out early were similar. Responses were generally similar for the lasmiditan 100 mg or 200 mg doses, between subgroups defined based on the number of baseline monthly migraine attacks (≤5 vs. >5), and also between subgroups defined by pain-free response (yes/no) during initial attacks., Conclusions: Long-term treatment with lasmiditan was associated with significant reductions in migraine-related disability, including both work or school absenteeism and presenteeism. The similarity of responses in completers and those who dropped out suggests that selective attrition does not account for the improvements. Benefits were significant at 3 months and maintained through 12 months., Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.govNCT02565186; first posted October 1, 2015.

Background: The MAST Study is a longitudinal, cross-sectional survey study of US adults with migraine. These analyses were conducted to estimate rates of acute medication overuse (AMO) and determine associations of AMO with individual and headache characteristics., Methods: Eligible respondents had ICHD-3-beta migraine, reported ≥3 monthly headache days (MHDs) in the past 3 months, ≥1 MHD in the past 30 days, and currently took acute headache medication. AMO was defined according to ICHD-3-beta thresholds for monthly days of medication taking when diagnosing medication overuse headache., Results: Eligible respondents (N = 13,649) had a mean age of 43.4 ± 13.6 years; most were female (72.9%) and Caucasian (81.9%). Altogether, 15.4% of respondents met criteria for AMO. Compared with those not overusing medications, respondents with AMO were significantly more likely to be taking triptans (31.3% vs 14.2%), opioids (23.8% vs 8.0%), barbiturates (7.8% vs 2.7%), and ergot alkaloids (3.1% vs 0.6%) and significantly less likely to be taking NSAIDs (63.3% vs 69.8%) (p < 0.001 for all comparisons). Respondents with AMO had significantly more MHDs (12.9 ± 8.6 vs 4.3 ± 4.3, p  <  0.001); higher migraine symptom severity (17.8 ± 2.7 vs 16.4 ± 3.0, p  <  0.001), higher pain intensity scores (7.4 vs 6.5, p  <  0.001); and higher rates of cutaneous allodynia (53.7% vs 37.5%, p  <  0.001). Adjusted for MHDs, the odds of AMO were increased by each additional year of age (OR 1.02, 95% CI 1.02, 1.03); being married (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.06, 1.34); smoking (OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.31, 1.81); having psychological symptoms (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.43, 1.83) or cutaneous allodynia (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.08, 1.37); and greater migraine symptom severity (OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.04, 1.09) and pain intensity (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.22, 1.32). Cutaneous allodynia increased the risk of AMO by 61% in males (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.28, 2.03) but did not increase risk in females (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.94, 1.25)., Conclusions: AMO was present in 15% of respondents with migraine. AMO was associated with higher symptom severity scores, pain intensity, and rates of cutaneous allodynia. AMO was more likely in triptan, opioid, and barbiturate users but less likely in NSAID users. Cutaneous allodynia was associated with AMO in men but not women. This gender difference merits additional exploration.

Background: Relatively little is known about the stability of a diagnosis of episodic migraine (EM) or chronic migraine (CM) over time. This study examines natural fluctuations in self-reported headache frequency as well as the stability and variation in migraine type among individuals meeting criteria for EM and CM at baseline., Methods: The Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) Study was a longitudinal survey of US adults with EM and CM identified by a web-questionnaire. A validated questionnaire was used to classify respondents with EM (<15 headache days/month) or CM (≥15 headache days/month) every three months for a total of five assessments. We described longitudinal persistence of baseline EM and CM classifications. In addition, we modelled longitudinal variation in headache day frequency per month using negative binomial repeated measures regression models (NBRMR)., Results: Among the 5464 respondents with EM at baseline providing four or five waves of data, 5048 (92.4%) had EM in all waves and 416 (7.6%) had CM in at least one wave. Among 526 respondents with CM at baseline providing four or five waves of data, 140 (26.6%) had CM in every wave and 386 (73.4%) had EM for at least one wave. Individual plots revealed striking within-person variations in headache days per month. The NBRMR model revealed that the rate of headache days increased across waves of observation 19% more per wave for CM compared to EM (rate ratio [RR], 1.19; 95% CI, 1.13-1.26). After adjustment for covariates, the relative difference changed to a 26% increase per wave (RR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.2-1.33)., Conclusions: Follow-up at three-month intervals reveals a high level of short-term variability in headache days per month. As a consequence, many individuals cross the CM diagnostic boundary of ≥15 headache days per month.Nearly three quarters of persons with CM at baseline drop below this diagnostic boundary at least once over the course of a year. These findings are of interest in the consideration of headache classification and diagnosis, the design and interpretation of epidemiologic and clinical studies, and clinical management.

Background: Studies of the difference between menstrually associated and non-menstrually associated migraine are somewhat controversial. The majority of studies have focused on comparing menstrual to non-menstrual attacks rather than comparing study groups with different migraine diagnoses with respect to menstruation. As there is limited knowledge available on the overall impact and burden of migraine among groups of women with and without menstrually associated migraine our goal was to examine differences between these groups. We hypothesized that there would be greater burden of migraine related to menstruation and headache frequency in a population study across groups of women., Methods: We analyzed data from the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention (AMPP) Study, a longitudinal, US, population-based study. We included female respondents to the 2009 survey, aged 18 to 60, who met modified ICHD-2 criteria for migraine, were actively menstruating and fit one of three definitions based on the self-reported association of menses and migraine attacks: self-reported predominantly menstrual migraine (MM, attacks that only or predominantly occur at the time of menses), self-reported menstrually-associated migraine (MAM, attacks commonly associated with menses, but that also occur at other times of the month), and self-reported menstrually-unrelated migraine (MUM). These three groups were compared on characteristics and measures of headache impact and burden (Headache Impact Test- 6 item (HIT-6) and Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS)., Results: There were 1,697 eligible subjects for this study in the following categories: MM (5.5%), MAM (53.8%), or MUM (40.7%). Women with MM had an older age of migraine onset. Those with predominantly menstrually-related attacks (MM) had fewer headache-days but appeared to be more impaired by attacks. HIT-6 and MIDAS scores were significantly higher for both the MM and MAM groups compared with the MUM groups; however, effects were more robust for MM than MAM., Conclusions: Nearly 60% of women with migraine reported an association between migraine and menses. These women reported greater headache impact and migraine-related burden on functioning than those in whom migraines were not related to menstruation. Women with MM were more impaired by attacks while women with MAM had overall highest burden, likely due to experiencing migraines on additional days.

The aim of this study was to assess the role of depression as a predictor of new onset of chronic migraine (CM) among persons with episodic migraine (EM). The American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention (AMPP) study followed 24,000 persons with severe headache identified in 2004. Using random-effects logistic regression, we modeled the probability that persons with EM in 2005 or 2006 would develop CM in the subsequent year. Depression was assessed in two ways, using a validated questionnaire (PHQ-9 score ≥15) and based on self-reported medical diagnosis. Analyses were adjusted for multiple covariates including sociodemographics, body mass index, headache pain intensity, headache frequency, migraine symptom severity, cutaneous allodynia, acute medication overuse, anti-depressant use and anxiety. Of 6,657 participants with EM in 2005, 160 (2.4 %) developed CM in 2006. Of 6,852 participants with EM in 2006, 144 (2.2 %) developed CM in 2007. In fully adjusted models, PHQ-9 defined depression was a significant predictor of CM onset [odds ratio (OR) = 1.65, 95 % CI 1.12-2.45]. There was a depression-dose effect; relative to participants with no depression or mild depression, those with moderate (OR = 1.77, 95 % CI 1.25-2.52), moderately severe (OR = 2.35, 95 % CI 1.53-3.62), and severe depression (OR = 2.53, 95 % CI 1.52-4.21) were at increased risk for the onset of CM. Among persons with EM, depression was associated with an increased risk of CM after adjusting for sociodemographic variables and headache characteristics. Depression preceded the onset of CM and risk increased with depression severity suggesting a potentially causal role though reverse causality cannot be excluded.