Search

As the American Headache Society approaches its 50th anniversary, it seems worthwhile to step back and survey the many changes in the headache field since the 1950s. Many, perhaps most, of the trends, ideas, and changes we review in this article cannot easily be assigned to a particular decade but we have nonetheless chosen a by-the-decade format because it is a familiar and useful way of understanding history. Our focus is on events in the United States and the American Headache Society; space and the need to limit the scope of the article preclude a full description of the many parallel and influential trends, personalities, and ideas in other parts of the world or in other professional organizations. The authors hope you will find this summary of American Headache Medicine in the last half of the 20th and the beginning of the 21st centuries entertaining and educational.

Objective: To evaluate inpatient treatment of headache in the United States., Participants: Participants were selected by the meeting chairpersons, Drs. Diamond and Silberstein as well as Dr. Freitag. Criteria for selection included participation in an inpatient treatment program, headache specialists not affiliated with an inpatient treatment program, clinician with interest in headache but not affiliated with a dedicated headache treatment program. The single meeting held in New York was by invitation only. All invitees were provided with opportunity to present their views and participate in the recommendations of the Consortium. The list of participants at the meeting were: Harvey Blumenthal, MD, Roger Cady, MD, James Couch, MD, Seymour Diamond, MD, Frederick G. Freitag, DO, R. Michael Gallagher, DO, Al Lake III, PhD, Richard Lipton, MD, NinanMathew,MD, Alan Rapoport, MD, Jay Rosenberg, MD, Joel Saper, MD, Stephen Silberstein, MD. Funding for theproject was provided by the US Headache Guidelines Consortium Project through the American Academy of Neurology and the National Headache Foundation., Evidence: Each of the authors were part of the writing committee each with specific areas that they were responsible for conducting the literature reviews and submitting a portion of the original document for editing and review. Dr. Freitag coordinated this process and assembled the first draft of the article for circulation and review among the authors and chairpersons. In the absence of class I evidence consensus expert opinion was fundamental to the process., Conclusions: The treatment of headache is commonly delivered in the outpatient office environment. There exists a group of patients who have been refractive to outpatient treatment and in whom in patient care may be appropriate. The factors that determine the optimal treatment setting, the methodology of the treatment and the results of such treatment have come under increasing scrutiny secondary to the cost of treatment in the hospital. The US Headache Consortium guidelines project in conjunction with the national headache foundation believed that the need existed to objectively examine the issues surrounding inpatient treatment. The epidemiology of chronic headache is important to understand in this context since essentially all patients that are treated in hospital have high frequency headache often associated with significant disability. This severity of illness produces both health care costs but also is responsible for significant impact on businesses and the economy. The method of treatment of headache in the hospital environment can follow several paths based on the accessibility of the resources specific to headache treatment. While there exist these differing paths of treatment only treatment in a dedicated headache treatment unit has been investigated in depth here in the US though reports from other countries that do not have dedicated inpatient treatment lends support to options in headache treatment. Some have suggested that inpatient treatment is not required even in recidivist patients and limited reports have examined aggressive outpatient treatment as an option in headache management. None of the studies reported to date provide class one evidence for efficacy either inpatient or outpatient. Recommendations are made to assess headache treatment in patients with high frequency headaches to garner better scientific evidence for differing treatment approaches.

Introduction.— Chronic migraine is a recent diagnostic term that has undergone evolution from its original description. Clinically it has been believed that medication overuse contributed to its development and would block attempts at prevention. Previous studies with Botulinum Toxin Type A have demonstrated that it is effective even in patients with medication overuse. This study undertakes to examine the effects of Botulinum Toxin Type A in the absence of medication overuse in patients with chronic migraine. Study Design.— Double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trial of Botulinum Toxin Type A 100 units administered in a fixed dose and site paradigm. Patients.— In total, 86 patients were enrolled. A total of 60 patients were randomized and 41 patients were treated with the study medication or placebo. Five patients failed to complete the study, which lasted 4 months after the study medication was injected. Results.— Botulinum Toxin Type A was statistically superior to placebo for the primary endpoint of reduction in migraine headache episodes. Six patients on Botulinum Toxin Type A compared with 3 patients on Placebo had at least a 50% reduction in their migraine episodes. Active treatment was superior to placebo for the secondary endpoints of total headache days, headache index, and quality of life measures. It showed numerical superiority to placebo for acute medication use and Migraine Disability Assessment Scores. Adverse events were rare and similar in both treatment groups. Conclusions.— The use of Botulinum Toxin Type A may be an effective treatment for chronic migraine when the patient does not have concomitant medication overuse. It was well tolerated in this trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective.—To describe the patterns of medical treatment for migraineurs in the United States. Background.—Over the past decade, many new treatments for migraine have become available and awareness of migraine has improved. However, there is little information about the patterns of medical treatment in the US society. Design/Methods.—A validated self-administered headache questionnaire was mailed to a random sample of 120,000 US households. Each household member with severe headaches was asked to complete the survey. The questionnaire assessed headache features, disability, and patterns of medical treatment. Subjects were classified according to their use of headache preventive medication, as current users, coincident users (using effective medications for other medical reasons), lapsed users (had used in the past but not at the time of the survey), or never users. Results.—In 162,576 participants, the prevalence of migraine was 17.1% in women and 5.6% in men. Only 56.2% of those with migraine had ever received a medical diagnosis. Ninety-eight percent of the migraineurs used acute treatment for their migraine attacks. Forty-nine percent (49%) usually used over-the-counters, 20% usually used prescription medications, and 29% used both. Only 12.4% of migraineurs indicated that they were taking a migraine preventive medication, but 17.2% were using medications with potential antimigraine effects for other medical reasons. Current or past use of preventive medication was more likely in women than men (odds ratio [OR]= 1.37, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.27-1.48), increased with age and individuals with high MIDAS grade (Grade IV vs I, OR 2.35, 95% CI 2.09-2.64). Preventive medication use increased with awareness of migraine and with illness severity. Conclusions.—Migraine remains undertreated in the US population. Barriers to preventive treatment are greater in younger age groups, men, and people unaware that they have migraine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Migraine headaches affect 12% of the adult population in the United States and cause a significant economic loss due to decreased workplace productivity Although interactions between pharmacists and individuals with headache arc common, few pharmacists receive adequate training regarding migraine therapy. We relute several misconceptions that hinder effective cart'. such as that migraine is a vascular disease, triptans cause rampant cardiac- related morbidity and even mortality, a best oral triptan exists, sinus and tension headaches are prevalent, and migraine is a minor economic problem. Our pathophysiologic understanding demonstrates that migraine is a neurologic process of the trigeminovascular system, of which vascular effects are secondary. This process can result in a myriad of clinical signs and symptoms. often leading to a misdiagnosis of sinus or tension headache. The last decade's experience with triptans in more than half a billion people worldwide reveals a benign adverse-effect profile. particularly when taken early in an attack. Published reports arid real-world experiences illustrate that these drugs do not merit fears of triptan-induced cardiac consequences in appropriately selected individuals. Society's productivity loss due to migraine is measured in billions of dollars. Restoring a patient's ability to function normally is now recognized as the primary treatment goal, not merely relieving pain. Thus, the overreliance on pain killer" drugs such as butalbital-containing products arid die continued underutilization of migraine- specific drugs need to he addressed. Opportunities exist For pharmacists and other health care providers to dispel continually propagated migraine misconceptions and Familiarize themselves with advances in therapy. Such actions will benefit patients, the health care system. and society as a whole. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective.—To evaluate inpatient treatment of headache in the United States. Participants.— Evidence.— Conclusions.— [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective.—A population-based survey was conducted in 1999 to describe the patterns of migraine diagnosis and medication use in a representative sample of the US population and to compare results with a methodologically identical study conducted 10 years earlier. Methods.—A survey mailed to a panel of 20 000 US households identified 3577 individuals with severe headache meeting a case definition for migraine based on the International Headache Society (IHS) criteria. Those with severe headache answered questions regarding physician diagnosis and use of medications for headache as well as headache-related disability. Results.—A physician diagnosis of migraine was reported by 48% of survey participants who met IHS criteria for migraine in 1999, compared with 38% in 1989. A total of 41% of IHS-defined migraineurs used prescription drugs for headaches in 1999, compared with 37% in 1989. The proportion of IHS-defined migraineurs using only over-the-counter medications to treat their headaches was 57% in 1999, compared with 59% in 1989. In 1999, 37% of diagnosed and 21% of undiagnosed migraineurs reported 1 to 2 days of activity restriction per episode (P<.001); 38% of diagnosed and 24% of undiagnosed migraineurs missed at least 1 day of work or school in the previous 3 months (P<.001); 57% of diagnosed and 45% of undiagnosed migraineurs experienced at least a 50% reduction in work/school productivity (P<.001). Conclusions.— Diagnosis of migraine has increased over the past decade. Nonetheless, approximately half of migraineurs remain undiagnosed, and the increased rates of diagnosis of migraine have been accompanied by only a modest increase in the proportion using prescription medicines. Migraine continues to cause significant disability whether or not there has been a physician diagnosis. Given the availability of effective treatments, public health initiatives to improve patterns of care are warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective.—To describe the prevalence, sociodemographic profile, and the burden of migraine in the United States in 1999 and to compare results with the original American Migraine Study, a 1989 population-based study employing identical methods. Methods.—A validated, self-administered questionnaire was mailed to a sample of 20 000 households in the United States. Each household member with severe headache was asked to respond to questions about symptoms, frequency, and severity of headaches and about headache-related disability. Diagnostic criteria for migraine were based on those of the International Headache Society. This report is restricted to individuals 12 years and older. Results.—Of the 43 527 age-eligible individuals, 29 727 responded to the questionnaire for a 68.3% response rate. The prevalence of migraine was 18.2% among females and 6.5% among males. Approximately 23% of households contained at least one member suffering from migraine. Migraine prevalence was higher in whites than in blacks and was inversely related to household income. Prevalence increased from aged 12 years to about aged 40 years and declined thereafter in both sexes. Fifty-three percent of respondents reported that their severe headaches caused substantial impairment in activities or required bed rest. Approximately 31% missed at least 1 day of work or school in the previous 3 months because of migraine; 51% reported that work or school productivity was reduced by at least 50%. Conclusions.—Two methodologically identical national surveys in the United States conducted 10 years apart show that the prevalence and distribution of migraine have remained stable over the last decade. Migraine-associated disability remains substantial and pervasive. The number of migraineurs has increased from 23.6 million in 1989 to 27.9 million in 1999 commensurate with the growth of the population. Migraine is an important target for public health interventions because it... [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]