Search

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. Plain Language Summary: In this study, we looked at factors that related to a person's decision to seek medical care for migraine in a representative sample of over 60,000 adults with migraine in the United States. We found that only about half (51.0%) of the participants reported seeking care for migraine. We also found that people were more likely to seek medical care when migraine got in the way of their lives during and between migraine attacks, and when they had allodynia (pain from stimuli that do not normally cause pain). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. Plain Language Summary: We looked at data from a web‐based study of over 51,000 people across Canada, France, Germany, Japan, United Kingdom, and the United States to understand how neck pain affects people with migraine. We found that neck pain is common in people with migraine, and that those who have neck pain during their headaches have more disability, worse symptoms, more anxiety and depression, and poorer quality of life than those without neck pain. Our results show that neck pain is a serious problem for people with migraine, and it can worsen the negative impacts of migraine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. Plain Language Summary: People with migraine who experience frequent headaches or some level of disability may benefit from using a preventive medication for migraine. We collected data on the use of preventive medication for migraine in Canada, France, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States. These data demonstrated that many people who qualified for the use of a preventive treatment in the six participating countries were not currently taking a preventive medication for migraine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Electronic health records (EHR) data can be used to understand population level quality of care especially when supplemented with patient reported data. However, survey non-response can result in biased population estimates. As a case study, we demonstrate that EHR and survey data can be combined to estimate primary care population prescription treatment status for migraine stratified by migraine disability, without and with adjustment for survey non-response bias. We selected disability as it is associated with survey participation and patterns of prescribing for migraine. Methods: A stratified random sample of Sutter Health adult primary care (PC) patients completed a digital survey about headache, migraine, and migraine related disability. The survey data from respondents with migraine were combined with their EHR data to estimate the proportion who had prescription orders for acute or preventive migraine treatments. Separate proportions were also estimated for those with mild disability (denoted "mild migraine") versus moderate to severe disability (denoted mod-severe migraine) without and with correction, using the inverse propensity weighting method, for non-response bias. We hypothesized that correction for non-response bias would result in smaller differences in proportions who had a treatment order by migraine disability status. Results: The response rate among 28,268 patients was 8.2%. Among survey respondents, 37.2% had an acute treatment order and 16.8% had a preventive treatment order. The response bias corrected proportions were 26.2% and 11.6%, respectively, and these estimates did not differ from the total source population estimates (i.e., 26.4% for acute treatments, 12.0% for preventive treatments), validating the correction method. Acute treatment orders proportions were 32.3% for mild migraine versus 37.3% for mod-severe migraine and preventive treatment order proportions were 12.0% for mild migraine and 17.7% for mod-severe migraine. The response bias corrected proportions for acute treatments were 24.8% for mild migraine and 26.6% for mod-severe migraine and the proportions for preventive treatment were 8.1% for mild migraine and 12.0% for mod-severe migraine. Conclusions: In this study, we combined survey data with EHR data to better understand treatment needs among patients diagnosed with migraine. Migraine-related disability is directly related to preventive treatment orders but less so for acute treatments. Estimates of treatment status by self-reported disability status were substantially over-estimated among those with moderate to severe migraine-related disability without correction for non-response bias. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To assess rates of and factors associated with traversing fundamental barriers to good medical outcomes and pharmacologic care in individuals with episodic migraine (EM) and chronic migraine (CM), including socioeconomic status and race. Background: Barriers to good outcomes in migraine include the lack of appropriate medical consultation, failure to receive an accurate diagnosis, not being offered a regimen with acute and preventive pharmacologic treatments (if indicated), and not avoiding medication overuse. Methods: The Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) Study was a longitudinal Internet‐based survey. Respondents who met criteria for migraine consistent with the International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition, had a Migraine Disability Assessment score ≥ 6, and provided health insurance coverage status were included in this analysis. Successfully traversing each barrier to care and the effects of sociodemographic characteristics were examined. Results: Among 16,789 respondents with migraine, 9184 (54.7%; EM: 7930; CM: 1254) were eligible. Current headache consultation was reported by 27.6% (2187/7930) of EM and 40.8% (512/1254) of CM respondents. Among consulters, 75.7% (1655/2187) with EM and 32.8% (168/512) with CM were accurately diagnosed. Among diagnosed consulters, 59.9% (992/1655) with EM and 54.2% (91/168) with CM reported minimally appropriate acute and preventive pharmacologic treatment. Among diagnosed and treated consulters, in the EM group 31.8% (315/992) and in the CM group 74.7% (68/91) met medication overuse criteria. Only 8.5% (677/7930) of EM and 1.8% (23/1254) of CM respondents traversed all four barriers. Higher income was positively associated with likelihood of traversing each barrier. Blacks and/or African Americans had higher rates of consultation than other racial groups. Blacks and/or African Americans and multiracial people had higher rates of acute medication overuse. Conclusions: Efforts to improve care should focus on increasing consultation and diagnosis rates, improving the delivery of all appropriate guideline‐based treatment, and avoidance of medication overuse. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: We sought to assess factors associated with the frequency of self‐reported prescription opioid use in persons with migraine, including demographic variables, comorbidities, headache characteristics, and patterns of consultation. Background: Despite the dose‐dependent effect of opioids on migraine progression and the association with negative outcomes, migraine treatment often includes opioids. The Migraine in America Symptoms and Treatment Study focuses on individuals with migraine who receive prescription acute medications, including those receiving and those not receiving opioids. Methods: This web‐based panel survey identified people in the United States with migraine using a validated screener. This analysis stratified people with migraine into 4 groups based on days of monthly opioid use: non‐opioid users, ≤3 days, 4‒9 days, and ≥10 days per month. Results: Of 15,133 respondents with migraine, 4701 (31%) reported acute prescription medication use for headache/migraine in the previous 3 months (mean age 45 years, 71.6% [3367/4701] female), of whom 32.5% (1528/4701) reported opioid use. About one‐third of respondents with primary care or neurology consults in the prior 6 months reported receiving an opioid, and more than half of respondents (209/391, 53.5%) with a pain clinic consultation did so. Models compared those using opioids ≤3 days/month (879/4701, 18.7%), 4‒9 days/month (304/4701, 6.5%), ≥10 days/month (345/4701, 7.3%) to non‐opioid users (3173/4701, 67.5%). Compared to non‐opioid users, infrequent users (≤3 days/month) were more likely to be male and less likely to have chronic migraine or to screen positive for anxiety and depression; and frequent opioid users (the 4‒9 days/month and the ≥10 days/month groups) were more likely to be male, to smoke, to be obese, to report greater pain interference, to have moderate to severe disability, to have symptoms of anxiety and depression, to use fewer triptans and nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs, and to have poor acute treatment optimization. Conclusion: Among prescription medication users, this cross‐sectional analysis shows that increasing use of prescription opioids is associated with male gender, chronic migraine, more severe disability, anxiety and depression, poor acute treatment optimization, and treatment in a pain clinic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Migraine is associated with debilitating symptoms that can affect daily functioning. "My Migraine Voice" was a large, cross‐sectional, multi‐country online survey aimed at understanding disease burden directly from people with migraine. Objective: This study reports on the social and economic impacts of migraine, specifically the impact on activities of daily living and the costs of migraine, from the point of view of people with migraine in the United States. Methods: The online survey was administered to adults with a self‐reported diagnosis of migraine who experienced 4 or more monthly migraine days each month for the previous 3 months. Prespecified screening quotas were used so that 90% of respondents reported current or past use of preventive migraine medication, 80% of whom switched treatment (ie, changed their prescribed preventive medication at least once). The remaining 10% were preventive treatment naïve (ie, never used any prescribed preventive medication). Burden of migraine on activities of daily living and caregivers (eg, functional limitations, fear of next migraine attack, sleep problems) and economic burden (eg, out‐of‐pocket costs, impact on work productivity using the validated work productivity and activity impairment questionnaire) reported by respondents from the United States are presented. Results are stratified by employment status, migraine frequency (chronic vs episodic migraine), and history of preventive treatment. Results: Thousand hundred and one individuals with migraine from the United States responded to the survey. Respondents reported limitations completing daily activities during all migraine phases, including during the premonitory/aura and postdrome phases. Most (761/1101 (69%)) relied on family, friends, or others for help with daily tasks and reported being helped a median of 9 days (25th percentile 5 days, 75th percentile 15 days) within the last 3 months. Respondents with chronic migraine reported being helped for more days (median 10 days, 25th percentile 5 days, 75th percentile 23 days) in the last 3 months. Almost all (962/1101 (87%)) experienced sleep difficulties and 41% (448/1101) (48% (336/697) of those with 2 or more preventive treatment failures) were very or extremely fearful of a next migraine attack. Median (25th percentile, 75th percentile) monthly out‐of‐pocket costs of $90.00 ($30.00, $144.00) in doctor's fees (n = 504), $124.00 ($60.00, $234.00) in health insurance (n = 450), $40.00 ($20.00, $100.00) for prescriptions (n = 630), and $50.00 ($0.00, $100.00) for complementary therapies (n = 255) were reported. Those with 2 or more preventive treatment failures reported higher monthly out‐of‐pocket doctor fees (median $99.00 ($30.00, $150.00), n = 388). Among employed respondents (n = 661), migraine resulted in 22% absenteeism, 60% presenteeism, 65% work productivity loss, and 64% activity impairment. Conclusions: Migraine impacts individuals' activities of daily living, work‐life, and financial status, especially individuals with high needs, namely those with 4 or more monthly migraine days and prior treatment failures. People with migraine are impaired during all migraine phases, experience fear of their next migraine attack and sleep difficulties, and pay substantial monthly out‐of‐pocket costs for migraine. Burden is even greater among those who have had 2 or more preventive treatment failures. Impacts of migraine extend beyond probands to caregivers who help people with migraine with daily tasks, employers who are affected by employee absenteeism, presenteeism, and reduced productivity, and society which is burdened by lost and reduced economic productivity and healthcare costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This analysis assessed migraine‐related burden and treatment decisions in Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) Study survey respondents who stopped taking acute prescription medications for migraine. Background: Migraine is a common yet underdiagnosed and undertreated neurological disease often associated with significant disability. Acute prescription medications are underused, in part because patients discontinue treatment. Rates and reasons for discontinuing acute prescription medications require exploration. Methods: The CaMEO Study is a longitudinal, Internet‐based survey that identified and followed people who met modified ICHD‐3 migraine criteria. For this analysis, eligible respondents had used acute prescription medication for migraine in the past but no longer used or kept these treatments on hand (discontinued users). Respondents who reported discontinuing acute prescription treatment answered questions about length of time since last use and reasons for stopping. Reasons for discontinuing were thematically summarized. Monthly headache day frequency, Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS), Patient Health Questionnaire 9‐item depression screener, Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7‐item screener, and the 12‐item Allodynia Symptom Checklist were also assessed. Results: Of 13,624 respondents with migraine, 4840 (35.5%) had ever used acute prescription medications and 1719 (35.5%) of those were discontinued users. Discontinued users had a mean (SD) age of 42.1 (14) years, and 1348/1719 (78.4%) were female. Monthly headache frequency of 0‐4 days was reported by 1073/1719 (62.4%) of respondents, 5‐9 days by 322/1719 (18.7%), 10‐14 days by 135/1719 (7.9%), and ≥15 days by 189/1719 (11.0%). Two‐thirds (1160/1719 [67.5%]) of discontinued users reported a receiving migraine (or chronic migraine) diagnosis from a doctor or other health professional in the past. Although all had spoken to a doctor about their headaches, 1504/1719 (87.5%) had stopped having their headaches managed or treated by a doctor for at least 12 months. Only 1 in 5 discontinued users reported being able to work or function normally with a headache, and 717/1719 (41.7%) had moderate to severe disability (MIDAS). Among the most commonly reported reasons for prescription medication discontinuation were switching to non‐prescription pain medication (782/1719 [45.5%]), as well as concerns about prescription medication efficacy (484/1719 [28.2%]) and tolerability (428/1719 [24.9%]). Nearly half of respondents who reported either efficacy or tolerability concerns had moderate to severe disability. Conclusions: People with migraine who discontinue acute prescription medication have a high level of unmet treatment need. The majority cannot work or function normally with headaches, with 646/1719 (37.6%) of discontinued users reporting 5 or more headache days per month. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The current Phase 2b study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of mindfulness‐based cognitive therapy for migraine (MBCT‐M) to reduce migraine‐related disability in people with migraine. Background: Mindfulness‐based interventions represent a promising avenue to investigate effects in people with migraine. MBCT teaches mindfulness meditation and cognitive‐behavioral skills and directly applies these skills to address disease‐related cognitions. Methods: Participants with migraine (6‐30 headache days/month) were recruited from neurology office referrals and local and online advertisements in the broader New York City area. During the 30‐day baseline period, all participants completed a daily headache diary. Participants who met inclusion and exclusion criteria were randomized in a parallel design, stratified by chronic migraine status, to receive either 8 weekly individual MBCT‐M sessions or 8 weeks of waitlist/treatment as usual (WL/TAU). All participants completed surveys including primary outcome evaluations at Months 0, 1, 2, and 4. All participants completed a headache diary during the 30‐day posttreatment evaluation period. Primary outcomes were the change from Month 0 to Month 4 in the headache disability inventory (HDI) and the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) (total score ≥ 21 indicating severe disability); secondary outcomes (headache days/30 days, average headache attack pain intensity, and attack‐level migraine‐related disability [Migraine Disability Index (MIDI)]) were derived from the daily headache diary. Results: Sixty participants were randomized to receive MBCT‐M (n = 31) or WL/TAU (n = 29). Participants (M age = 40.1, SD = 11.7) were predominantly White (n = 49/60; 81.7%) and Non‐Hispanic (N = 50/60; 83.3%) women (n = 55/60; 91.7%) with a graduate degree (n = 35/60; 55.0%) who were working full‐time (n = 38/60; 63.3%). At baseline, the average HDI score (51.4, SD = 19.0) indicated a moderate level of disability and the majority of participants (50/60, 83.3%) fell in the "Severe Disability" range in the MIDAS. Participants recorded an average of 16.0 (SD = 5.9) headache days/30 days, with an average headache attack pain intensity of 1.7 on a 4‐point scale (SD = 0.3), indicating moderate intensity. Average levels of daily disability reported on the MIDI were 3.1/10 (SD = 1.8). For the HDI, mean scores decreased more from Month 0 to Month 4 in the MBCT‐M group (−14.3) than the waitlist/treatment as an usual group (−0.2; P < .001). For the MIDAS, the group*month interaction was not significant when accounting for the divided alpha, P = .027; across all participants in both groups, the estimated proportion of participants falling in the "Severe Disability" category fell significantly from 88.3% at Month 0 to 66.7% at Month 4, P < .001. For diary‐reported headache days/30 days an average headache attack pain intensity, neither the group*month interaction (Ps = .773 and.888, respectively) nor the time effect (Ps = .059 and.428, respectively) was significant. Mean MIDI scores decreased in the MBCT‐M group (−0.6/10), whereas they increased in the waitlist/treatment as an usual group (+0.3/10), P = .007. Conclusions: MBCT‐M demonstrated efficacy to reduce headache‐related disability and attack‐level migraine‐related disability. MBCT‐M is a promising emerging treatment for addressing migraine‐related disability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To characterize unmet treatment needs in a sample of Migraine in America Symptoms and Treatment (MAST) Study participants using oral, acute prescription migraine medications. Background: The MAST Study is a 2017 study of US adults with migraine that profiles current treatment patterns and identifies and quantifies unmet treatment needs. Methods: Cross‐sectional data from an online survey of US adults meeting ICHD‐3 beta criteria for migraine. For inclusion in this paper, respondents self‐reported a history of 3 or more monthly headache days (MHDs) in the past 3 months and at least 1 MHD in the past 30 days, and current use of orally administered acute prescription medication for headache. Three domains of unmet need were identified: inadequate treatment response (ie, inadequate 2‐hour pain freedom, recurrence within 24 hours of initial relief), demanding attack characteristics (rapid onset of attack, headache associated with sleep), and unique patient characteristics (opioid or barbiturate overuse, cardiovascular comorbidity). Sociodemographics, oral medication use, and coexisting conditions and symptoms (ie, level of treatment optimization, psychological symptoms, attack‐related cutaneous allodynia, and migraine symptom severity) were assessed for each domain and by the number of unmet need domains. Results: Overall, 15,133 respondents met inclusion criteria, 26.0% (3930/15,133) reported current use of oral acute prescription medication to treat headache. Eligible participants had a mean age of 45.0 years, 73.6% [2892/3930] were women and 81.1% [3186/3930]) were White. A total of 95.8% (3765/3930) of respondents had at least 1 unmet acute treatment need; 89.5% (3516/3930) reported demanding attack characteristics, 74.1% (2912/3930) reported inadequate treatment response, and 16.1% (634/3930) presented with unique patient characteristics. Common areas of unmet need were rapid headache onset (65.3% [2567/3930]), moderate to severe disability (55.6% [2187/3930]), inadequate 2‐hours pain freedom (49.0% [1892/3930]), and headache recurrence within 24 hours (38.0% [1493/3930]). An increasing number of unmet treatment need domains was associated with worsening psychological symptoms, attack‐related cutaneous allodynia and migraine symptom severity. Conclusion: Nearly all MAST Study respondents using acute oral prescription medications for migraine reported at least 1 unmet treatment need. As unmet needs increased, so did coexisting conditions and symptom severity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Infant colic, or excessive crying in an otherwise healthy infant, is common, although the cause(s) are not known. This study aimed to determine whether parental migraine is associated with infant colic. Methods: This was a cross‐sectional online survey study of biological parents of 4‐8 week olds in the United States during February and March 2017 and October 2017‐April 2018. Parents self‐reported information about their and their infant's health using validated instruments wherever possible. Parents were recruited using social media advertisements and completed the survey online. Migraine was identified with a validated screener using modified International Classification of Headache Disorders 3rd edition criteria. Parental depression and anxiety were screened with the Patient Health Questionnaire‐2 (PHQ‐2) and Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale‐2 (GAD‐2). Parental seasonal allergies and asthma were assessed by self‐report. Infant colic was determined based on parental response to the question, "Has your baby cried for at least 3 hours on at least 3 days in the last week?" Results: A total of 1,715 surveys were completed over 2 recruitment periods; 1,419 formed the analysis set. Eight hundred twenty‐seven were completed by biological mothers and 592 by biological fathers. Mean (SD) maternal age: 28.9 (5.1) years; 33.5% had migraine/probable migraine. Maternal migraine was associated with increased odds of infant colic: OR 1.7 (1.3‐2.4). Among mothers with migraine, headache frequency ≥15 days/month was associated with higher risk of infant colic (OR 2.5 (1.2‐5.3)); and anxiety was borderline associated (OR 1.7 (1.0‐2.9)). Mean (SD) paternal age was 31.6 (4.5) years; 20.8% had migraine/probable migraine. Paternal migraine was not associated with infant colic: OR 1.0 (0.7‐1.5). Fathers with depression (OR 2.4 (1.4‐4.3)) or anxiety (OR 1.7 (1.1‐2.7)) were more likely to have a baby with colic but having a girl infant was protective: (OR 0.7 (0.5‐0.97)). Conclusions: Mothers with migraine are more likely to have a baby with colic, while fathers with migraine are not. Further research is needed to determine the mechanisms underlying these findings. In the meantime, clinicians may wish to counsel parents with a maternal history of migraine about the increased possibility of having a colicky infant and provide resources and education about infant crying. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: We examined the cross‐sectional association of sleep apnea and indices of sleep quality with both episodic migraine (EM) and chronic migraine (CM). Background: Sleep apnea and abnormal patterns of sleep, such as insomnia, were associated with migraine onset, severity, and progression in previous research. Methods: The Chronic Migraine Epidemiology & Outcomes Study, a longitudinal study, used a series of web‐based surveys to assess migraine symptoms, burden, and patterns of health care utilization. Quota sampling was used from September 2012 to November 2013 to generate a representative sample of the US population. Persons who screened positive for sleep apnea on the Berlin Questionnaire are said to be at "high risk" for sleep apnea. Respondents indicated if they believed that they had sleep apnea, if a physician had diagnosed it, and if and how they were treated. Other aspects of sleep quality were assessed using the Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) Sleep Measures. Results: Of 12,810 eligible respondents with migraine and data on sleep, 11,699 with EM (91.3%) and 1111 with CM (8.7%) provided valid data for this analyses. According to the Berlin Questionnaire, 4739/12,810 (37.0%) were at "high risk" for sleep apnea, particularly persons with CM vs EM (575/1111 [51.8%] vs 4164/11,699 [35.6%]), men vs women (1431/3220 [44.4%] vs 3308/9590 [34.5%]), people with higher body mass index, and older people (all P < .001). Among respondents to the MOS Sleep Measures, persons with CM were more likely to report poor sleep quality than those with EM, including sleep disturbance (mean [SD] values: 53.2 [26.9] vs 37.9 [24.3]), snoring (38.0 [33.9] vs 31.0 [32.1]), shortness of breath (34.9 [29.8] vs 15.3 [20.6]), somnolence (44.1 [23.4] vs 32.2 [21.2]), and less likely to report sleep adequacy (34.0 [24.2] vs 39.2 [22.1]). Conclusions: Compared with respondents with EM, a larger proportion of those with CM were at "high risk" for sleep apnea and reported poor sleep quality. This reflects an association between CM vs EM and sleep apnea and poor sleep quality; the potential relationships are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This study aimed to identify the essential content and amount of information to be collected from people with migraine via a patient‐facing smartphone‐based migraine tracker for them to share with clinicians during live discussions to assist in optimizing migraine management. The proposed tracker is intended for use in non‐interventional research to evaluate disease burden in episodic migraine and chronic migraine patients as assessed by demographic and clinical characteristics and health resource utilization in an integrated delivery network setting. The proposed tracker is not intended for commercial purposes. Background: Epidemiological studies suggest migraine is underdiagnosed and undertreated. Studies of patient‐clinician interactions suggest that effective medical communication may help address these issues. Methods: Four migraine practice leaders, an epidemiologist with extensive migraine experience, and a measurement expert took part in a modified Delphi panel process to identify data elements that could be collected from people with migraine through a smartphone‐based migraine tracker. Importantly, the proposed tracker would not be intended to replace the patient‐clinician encounter but to support the encounter through enabling the patient to document migraine symptoms and experiences in a timely and accurate manner for sharing with a clinician as part of a broader face‐to‐face discussion. The panel reviewed questions derived from the existing migraine diaries in the public domain, those used in clinical trials, and patient‐centric surveys assessing the impact of migraine on physical function and other related concepts. Key considerations included identification of the most clinically useful data elements for a shared communication tool for people with migraine under the care of a clinician. The panel also identified numerous functionality requirements for such a tool and provided recommendations on the most effective way to present results to a clinician. Results: The expert panel opined that people with migraine may value the ability to capture a relatively broad range of information for their own migraine‐tracking purposes, while clinicians will likely find greater value in a small set of data relevant to the management of migraine. The panel identified the 3 most essential concepts in categories of data for a clinician, for which they coined the term "The 3 Fs": Frequency of days with headache; Frequency of acute medication usage; and Functional impairment. Information on the frequency of days with headache was felt to combine with the information on the frequency of acute medication usage to provide essential insights into current migraine management strategy and its outcomes, and to assist considerations of preventive measures. Functional impairment was treated as an effective surrogate for headache severity and was assessed based on the following: degree of difficulty in performing activities of daily living, impact on absenteeism (taking leave from work or cancelling/avoiding other activities) and presenteeism (performing work or other daily activities, with reduced productivity/capability), and amount of rest required as a result of a migraine attack. The modified Delphi panel process resulted in the selection of 13 questions in 8 categories to elicit sufficient and meaningful data comprising headache occurrence, symptoms, daily/preventive and as‐needed/acute medication usage, triggers, ability to concentrate, and functional impairment. The panel also agreed that the tracker should generate 2 distinct reports: one for people with migraine that would include a wider range of data about symptoms and perceived triggers, and a targeted report for the clinician that would place prime emphasis on the 3 Fs for aggregating the results of each headache occurrence and the trend over time. Conclusions: A system that easily captures critical data elements about migraine, with specific feedback displays for patients to share with clinicians during live discussions, may offer some benefit to people with migraine and their clinicians by facilitating more objective communication and optimizing management. The tracker's output may enable people with migraine to track a wide range of data for their own purposes, allowing them to better understand their condition, while a synthesized view of the selected data may support more informed clinical decision‐making for the clinician and individualized, evidence‐based discussion with the patient. As a result, this shared decision‐making tool may enable patients to more accurately convey essential migraine information during live patient‐clinician discussions to drive improved management and patient outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To summarize the baseline methods for the Migraine in America Symptoms and Treatment (MAST) Study and evaluate gender differences in sociodemographics and headache features; consultation and diagnosis patterns; and patterns of acute and preventive treatment use for migraine among study participants. Background: The MAST Study is a longitudinal, internet‐based panel study of symptoms, approaches to management, and unmet treatment needs among US adults with migraine. This analysis focuses on the initial cross‐sectional survey, conducted beginning in 2016, and is intended to update results from earlier national epidemiologic surveys of people with migraine in the United States. Methods: Respondents to the MAST Study were recruited from a US nationwide online research panel. Stratified random sampling identified a representative cohort of adults (aged ≥18 years). We administered a validated diagnostic screener based on modified ICHD‐3 beta criteria to identify individuals with migraine averaging at least 1 monthly headache day (MHD) over the previous 3 months. A baseline assessment evaluated sociodemographic and headache features, patterns of consultation and diagnosis, and use of acute and preventive medications for migraine. Frequency data and chi‐square contrasts (P < .05) were used to compare respondents based on gender. Results: Baseline survey data (N = 95,821) identified 18,353 respondents who met criteria for migraine, including 15,133 (women n = 11,049, men n = 4084) reporting at least 1 MHD for the preceding 3 months. The mean age of the sample was 43.1 (13.6) years; 73.0% of respondents were women, and 81.0% were Caucasian. Compared with men, women were younger (46.1 vs 42.0 years; P < .001); had more MHDs (5.6 vs 5.3; P < .001); and were more likely to report moderate or severe headache‐related disability (45.9% vs 35.8%; P < .001) and cutaneous allodynia (43.7% vs 29.5%; P < .001). The lifetime rate of medical consultation for headache was 79.8% overall and slightly higher in women than in men. Women were more likely than men to have been diagnosed with migraine (48.3% vs 38.8%, P < .001). While 95.1% of people with migraine currently used acute treatment, the majority (58.9%) used over‐the‐counter (OTC) drugs to the exclusion of prescription drugs, while 11.3% used exclusively prescription drugs, and 20.5% used both. Among acute prescription medication users, women were more likely than men to take triptans (17.7% vs 14.3%, P < .001), while men were more likely than women to take opioids (14.5% vs 9.2%, P < .001). Oral formulations were used predominately (92.7% of the medication users), but men were more likely to use nasal sprays (13.6% vs 9.4%, P < .001) and injectables (7.9% vs 3.4%, P < .001). Men (14.5%) were also significantly more likely than women (10.4%) to be taking daily oral preventive medication (P < .001). Conclusions: The MAST Study identified a large sample of women and men with migraine from a sampling frame that broadly resembles the US population. Low participation rate increases the risk of response bias, however, comparisons with Census data and prior population studies for the demographic and headache characteristics of the current sample suggest that findings are generalizable to the population of people with migraine. Women had more MHDs than men, and they were more likely to report migraine‐related disability and cutaneous allodynia. The lifetime consultation rate for headache was relatively high, but many with migraine symptoms reported never having received a diagnosis of migraine from a healthcare professional. Acute prescription and preventive migraine treatments are underused. Migraine persists as an underdiagnosed and undertreated public health problem in 2018, and there are many opportunities to improve the diagnosis and treatment of people with this painful, disabling condition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To identify natural subgroups of people with migraine based on profiles of comorbidities and concomitant conditions, hereafter referred to as comorbidities. Background: Migraine is a heterogeneous disease. Identifying natural subgroups (endophenotypes) may facilitate biological and genetic characterization and the development of personalized treatment. Methods: The Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes Study is a prospective web‐based survey study designed to characterize the course of migraine and related comorbidities in a systematic US sample of people with migraine. Respondents were asked if they ever had a specific comorbidity and, if present, whether the comorbidity was confirmed/diagnosed by a “doctor”; 62 comorbidities were available for analysis. Latent class analysis (LCA) modeling determined the optimal number of classes and a parsimonious set of comorbidities. Results: Of the 12,810 respondents with migraine, 11,837 reported ≥1 comorbidity and were included in this analysis. After statistical analysis and clinical judgment reduced the number of comorbidities, we selected an 8‐class model based on 22 comorbidities. Each class had a distinct pattern summarized as follows: Class 1, Most Comorbidities; Class 2, Respiratory/Psychiatric; Class 3, Respiratory/Pain; Class 4, Respiratory; Class 5, Psychiatric; Class 6, Cardiovascular; Class 7, Pain; Class 8, Fewest Comorbidities. The distribution of individuals across models was variable, with one‐third of respondents in Class 8 (Fewest Comorbidities) and <10% in Class 1 (Most Comorbidities). Demographic and headache characteristics, not used in assigning class membership, varied across classes. For example, comparing Class 1 (Most Comorbidities) and Class 8 (Fewest Comorbidities), Class 1 had a greater proportion of individuals with severe disability (Migraine Disability Assessment grade IV; 48.1% vs 22.3% of overall individuals) and higher rates of allodynia (67.6% vs 47.0%), medication overuse (36.4% vs 15.0%), chronic migraine (23.1% vs 9.1%), and aura (40.1% vs 28.8%). Conclusions: LCA modeling identified 8 natural subgroups of persons with migraine based on comorbidity profiles. These classes show differences in demographic and headache features not used to form the classes. Subsequent research will assess prognostic and biologic differences among the classes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate relationships between psychiatric symptoms, acceptance, and migraine‐related disability in a sample of people with migraine presenting at a tertiary care headache center. Background: Migraine is a chronic disease that can be severely disabling. Despite a strong theoretical basis and evidence in other pain conditions, little is known about relationships between acceptance, psychiatric symptoms, and migraine‐related disability. Methods: Ninety patients with physician‐diagnosed migraine completed surveys assessing demographics, headache symptoms, severe migraine‐related disability (Migraine Disability Assessment Scale total score dichotomized at ≥ 21), depression (Patient Health Questionnaire‐9) and anxiety symptoms (Generalized Anxiety Disorder‐7), and acceptance (Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire; subscales: Pain Willingness and Activity Engagement). Results: Participants (77.8% white, non‐Hispanic; 85.6% women; and 50.0% with a graduate level education) reported an average headache pain intensity of 6.7/10 (SD = 2.0). One‐third (36.0%) reported chronic migraine, and half (51.5%) reported severe migraine‐related disability. Lower acceptance was associated with severe migraine‐related disability, t(54) = 4.13, P < .001. Higher activity engagement was associated with lower average headache pain intensity (r = −.30, P = .011). Higher acceptance was associated with lower levels of depression (r = −.48, P < .001) and anxiety symptoms (r = −.37, P = .003). Pain willingness and activity engagement serially mediated relationships between depression symptoms and severe migraine‐related disability (indirect effect = 0.05, 95% CI = 0.01, 0.15), and between anxiety symptoms and severe migraine‐related disability (indirect effect = 0.12, 95% CI = 0.02, 0.31). Conclusion: Results provided preliminary support for a theoretical pathway by which psychiatric symptoms may influence migraine‐related disability, in part, through their relationships with pain willingness and activity engagement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To assess the impact of parental migraine on adolescents (aged 13‐21 years) living within the parental home from the adolescent's perspective. Background: Family members are affected by their parent's migraine. We surveyed adolescents on the social, academic, and emotional effects of their parent's migraine. Methods: The Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) study was a longitudinal Web‐based study with cross‐sectional modules designed to assess migraine symptoms, severity, frequency, and disability; migraine‐related consulting practices, healthcare utilization, medication use, comorbid health conditions, and family related burden associated with migraine. The Family Burden Module (adolescent version; FBM‐A) from the CaMEO study assessed parents with migraine and adolescent household members (dyads). Adolescents ranged in age from 13‐21 years and were living at home with their parent. The initial FBM‐A survey included 52 items covering five domains, which was refined and reduced by confirmatory factor analysis to 36 items covering four domains. Depression (9‐item Patient Health Questionnaire) and anxiety (7‐item Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale) were assessed. Item responses were stratified by parent migraine status (episodic migraine [EM], <15 headache days/month; chronic migraine [CM], ≥15 headache days/month). Frequencies of activities/events missed because of parental headache were categorized as ≥1 time or ≥4 times/previous 30 days. Results: The sample included 1,411 parent‐adolescent dyads (parent with EM, n = 1,243 [88.1%]; parent with CM, n = 168 [11.9%]). Burden due to a parent's migraine was reported in four domains based on 36 items including: Loss of Parental Support and Reverse Caregiving (5 items); Emotional Experience (13 items); Interference with School (4 items); and Missed Activities and Events (14 items). Across domains, perceived burden was greater for adolescents of parents with CM vs EM. Rates of moderate‐to‐severe anxiety symptoms were higher among adolescents of parents with CM (6.2 vs 11.3%, P = .01), while moderate‐to‐severe depression symptom rates were similar (5.5 vs 8.9%, P = .08). More adolescents of CM vs EM parents reported having a headache within the previous 3 months (P < .001). Conclusions: Parental migraine negatively impacts adolescent children, extending our understanding of the family burden of migraine and emphasizing the potential benefit to children of optimizing migraine care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To describe the development of the Impact of Migraine on Partners and Adolescent Children (IMPAC) scale. Background Although existing data and clinical experience suggest that the impact of migraine is pervasive and extends beyond the individual with migraine, no validated tools exist for assessing the impact of migraine on the family. Methods The Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) Study is a longitudinal study of people with migraine in the United States. The Family Burden Module (FBM) of the CaMEO Study contained an item pool of 53 questions derived through literature review, clinician input, and patient focus groups pertaining to the following concepts: impact of migraine on family interpersonal relationships, activities, well-being, finances, and health-related quality of life. Respondents with migraine (ie, probands) were categorized into 4 groups based on household composition: migraine probands with partners/spouses and children (M-PC), migraine probands with partners/spouses only (M-P), migraine probands with child(ren) only (M-C), and migraine probands without a partner/spouse or child(ren) (M-O). The IMPAC scale was developed in 3 steps: (1) exploratory factor analysis and item reduction, (2) bifactor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, and scoring, and (3) reliability and construct validity analyses. Results The analysis of data from 13,064 respondents to the FBM meeting criteria for migraine yielded a 12-item IMPAC scale, with 4 items applying to all of the groups, 4 more items applying to the groups with partners (M-P and M-PC), and 4 additional items to the groups with children (M-C and M-PC). Item responses can be summed and converted into a scoring system assessing mild (<0.5 SD below mean; IMPAC scale Grade I), moderate (0.5 SD below to <0.5 SD above mean; Grade II), severe (0.5-<1.5 SD above mean; Grade III), and very severe (≥0.5 SD above mean; Grade IV) family impact. Test information curves relating to the IMPAC scale for each household type indicated adequate reliability across a large range of family burden severity (from ∼1 SD below to ∼3 SD above mean) and IMPAC scores showed moderate-to-large correlations with other validated tools (range, ± 0.38-0.52), providing support for construct validity. Conclusions We developed a questionnaire to assess family burden attributed to migraine that is brief, robust, and psychometrically sound, with a simple scoring algorithm that can be applied to various household compositions. This questionnaire may be valuable in research settings to provide quantifiable data on the impact of migraine on family dynamics and in clinical settings to facilitate conversations about family burden as a target and a motivation for better treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To evaluate the relationships among modifiable psychological factors and chronic migraine and severe migraine-related disability in a clinic-based sample of persons with migraine. Background Evidence evaluating relationships between modifiable psychological factors and chronic migraine and severe migraine-related disability is lacking in people with migraine presenting for routine clinical care. Methods Adults with migraine completed surveys during routinely scheduled visits to a tertiary headache center. Participants completed surveys assessing chronic migraine (meeting criteria for migraine with ≥15 headache days in the past month), severe migraine disability (Migraine Disability Assessment Scale score ≥ 21), and modifiable psychological factors (depressive symptoms [Patient Health Questionnaire-9], anxious symptoms [Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7], Pain Catastrophizing Scale and Headache Specific Locus of Control). Logistic regression evaluated relationships between modifiable psychological factors and chronic migraine and severe migraine disability. Results Among 90 eligible participants the mean age was 45.0 (SD = 12.4); 84.8% were women. One-third (36.0%) met study criteria for chronic migraine; half of participants (51.5%) reported severe migraine-related disability. Higher depressive symptoms (OR = 1.99, 95% CI = 1.11, 3.55) and chance HSLC (OR = 1.85, 95% CI = 1.13, 1.43) were associated with chronic migraine. Higher depressive symptoms (OR = 3.54, 95%CI = 1.49, 8.41), anxiety symptoms (OR = 3.65, 95% CI = 1.65, 8.06), and pain catastrophizing (OR = 1.95, 95% CI = 1.14, 3.35), were associated with severe migraine-related disability. Conclusions Psychiatric symptoms and pain catastrophizing were strongly associated with severe migraine-related disability. Depression and chance locus of control were associated with chronic migraine. This study supports the need for longitudinal observational studies to evaluate the relationships among naturalistic variation in psychological factors, migraine-related disability, and migraine chronification. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Pain freedom at 2 hours and sustained pain response at 24 hours are important outcomes of acute migraine therapy. Some studies have examined rates and predictors of successful treatment outcomes for single attacks in clinical trials. However, little is known about predictors of typical response to acute treatment over multiple attacks in the population. Objectives To identify sociodemographic features, headache characteristics, comorbidities and treatment-related factors that predict acute treatment success or failure at 2 hours and 24 hours post dose in a US population sample of persons with episodic migraine. Methods Eligible respondents completed the 2006 American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention Study survey, met criteria for episodic migraine, reported the use of acute treatment for migraine and answered questions on acute treatment outcomes from the Migraine Treatment Optimization Questionnaire (mTOQ). One question focused on 2 hour pain free (2hPF) response and the other focused on pain relief at 2 hours and 24 hours (24hPR). For each question, responses were considered adequate if they were achieved 'half the time or more' and inadequate if they were achieved 'never,' 'rarely,' or 'less than half the time.' Models were run to identify predictors of outcomes in relation to usual acute treatment: (1) Inadequate 2hPF response; (2) Inadequate 24hPR response; and (3) Inadequate 24 hour Sustained Pain Freedom (24hSPF), which was a conditional analysis of pain freedom at 24 hours among those who initially had an adequate pain freedom response at 2 hours. Binary logistic regression models were used to separately predict each of the 3 outcomes adjusting for covariates. Potential predictor variables were analyzed independently and variables that did not contribute significantly to outcome prediction were trimmed. The retained variables were entered into a final multivariable binary logistic regression that included age, sex, and the covariates that survived the trimming process. Odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) statistics were generated for each variable. A value of P ≤ .05 was used to identify statistically significant variables. Results Among 8233 eligible respondents with episodic migraine, 56.0% of respondents reported Inadequate 2hPF response to usual acute treatment and 53.7% reported Inadequate 24hPR. Among the 44.0% of individuals who achieved Adequate 2hPF (N = 3621), 25.7% reported Inadequate 24hSPR or recurrence. Significant predictors of Inadequate 2hPF response included demographic variables (male sex and higher body mass index [BMI]), headache features (higher headache pain intensity, cutaneous allodynia, more headache days per month), comorbidity (depression), and migraine pharmacologic treatment factors (not using preventive migraine medications). Significant predictors of Inadequate 24hPR included headache features (more headache days per month, higher migraine symptom severity composite score, cutaneous allodynia), comorbidity (depression), and migraine pharmacologic treatment factors (medication overuse). Significant predictors of Inadequate 24hSPR were greater monthly headache day frequency, cutaneous allodynia, depression, medication overuse, and higher migraine symptom severity composite score. Conclusions These results provide a snapshot of the effectiveness of usual acute treatment as well as predictors of inadequate acute treatment response in a large population sample of people with episodic migraine. These results highlight the high rates of unmet treatment needs in people with migraine. Similarities and differences in predictors vary with outcome for reasons that are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective The objective of this study was to compare the societal direct and indirect costs of chronic and episodic migraine in the United States. Background Episodic and chronic migraine are distinguished by the frequency of headache-days. Chronic migraine has a greater overall impact on quality of life than does episodic migraine. Individuals with chronic migraine also use more healthcare resources (resulting in higher direct costs) and experience greater decreases in productivity (resulting in higher indirect costs) than those with episodic migraine as shown in the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention (AMPP) Study. Methods The International Burden of Migraine Study utilized a web-based questionnaire to elicit data on several topics related to the burden of migraine illness, including health resource utilization and productivity losses. Potential survey participants were identified by Synovate Healthcare (Chicago, IL, USA) from a pool of registered panelists from various countries. The panelists were screened online to determine eligibility and to identify individuals with migraine (episodic or chronic), based on reported symptoms. Participants from the United States were divided into episodic and chronic migraine groups, based on reported headache-day per month frequency. Direct and indirect costs were estimated by applying estimated unit costs to reported headache-related productivity losses and resource use. Costs were compared between participants with episodic and chronic migraine. Results Mean [standard deviation] total annual cost of headache among people with chronic migraine ($8243 [$10,646]) was over three times that of episodic migraine ($2649 [$4634], P < .001). Participants with chronic migraine had significantly greater direct medical costs ($4943 [$6382]) and indirect (lost productivity) costs ($3300 [$6907]) than did participants with episodic migraine (direct, $1705 [$3591]; indirect, $943 [$2084]) ( P < .001 for each). Unlike previous findings, direct medical costs constituted the majority of total headache-related costs for both chronic migraine (60.0%, $4943 of $8243) and episodic migraine (64.3%, $1705 of $2649) participants. A large portion of direct medical costs are attributable to pharmaceutical utilization among both chronic migraine (80%, $3925 of 4943) and episodic migraine (70%, $1196 of $1705) participants. Conclusion The results of this study build on previous results of the AMPP Study, demonstrating that headache-related direct, indirect, and total costs are significantly greater among individuals with chronic migraine than with episodic migraine in the United States. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background.- Though triptans are considered the standard of acute therapy for migraine attacks with headache-related disability, they are used by the minority of potentially eligible persons. Understanding the socio-demographic and headache features that predict triptan use may help to clarify barriers to optimal treatment. Objective.- To assess the sociodemographic and headache features associated with triptan use in a US population sample of persons with episodic migraine. Methods.- The American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention Study (AMPP) is a longitudinal study conducted in a representative sample of US headache sufferers. Episodic migraineurs (n = 11,388) who provided treatment data in 2005 were included in the current analyses. We assessed factors associated with triptan use through univariate and multivariate analyses. Multivariate analyses were adjusted for sociodemographic factors, headache-related disability, cutaneous allodynia, depression, and preventive headache medication use. Results.- Among persons with episodic migraine, 18.31% reported current use of triptans for acute headache treatment. In univariate analyses, triptan use was most common in midlife (ages 30-59), among females, and was more common in Caucasians than in African Americans. Triptan use increased with headache frequency, headache-related disability and allodynia, but decreased among persons with depression. In multivariate analyses, female gender, Caucasian race, age 40-49, higher levels of education (college or higher), annual household income of ≥$40,000, having health insurance, the presence of cutaneous allodynia, greater headache-related disability, and preventive medication use for migraine were significantly associated with triptan use. Conclusions.- Less than 1 in 5 persons with migraine in the United States who were respondents to this survey used triptans for acute headache treatment over the course of a year. Several markers of severe headache, including disability and allodynia, were associated with increased triptan use. Groups less likely to get triptans included males, African Americans, older adults, and the uninsured. Predictors of use provide insight into groups with unmet treatment needs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective.- To assess the frequency of opioid use for acute migraine treatment and characterize use groups by sociodemographics, health-care resource utilization (HRU), comorbidities and probable dependence within a large, US population-based sample of persons with migraine. Background.- Opioids are used in the acute treatment of migraine. However, their use is controversial. Methods.- Data from the 2009 American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention (AMPP) study were used to categorize persons with migraine into 4 groups based on reported opioid use: nonusers (between 2005 and 2009), previous users (history of use between 2005 and 2008 but no-use in 2009), and current opioid users (those reporting use of opioids in the 3 months preceding the 2009 American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention survey). Current opioid users were divided into nondependent and probable dependence users according to criteria for dependence adapted for inclusion in the survey from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-4th edition. All opioid-use groups were contrasted by sociodemographics, headache characteristics, medical and psychiatric comorbidities (depression [measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire-9], anxiety [measured by the Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Health Disorders, PRIME-MD], and cardiovascular events and risk factors), and headache-related HRU. Results.- In a sample of 5796 migraineurs, 4076 (70.3%) were opioid nonusers, 798 (13.8%) were previous users, and 922 (15.9%) were current opioid users. Among current opioid users, 153 (16.6%) met criteria for probable dependence and 769 (83.4%) did not. Headache-related disability (Migraine Disability Assessment sum scores) increased across groups as follows: nonusers: 7.8, previous users: 13.3, current nondependent users: 19.1, and current probable dependence users: 44.4, as did monthly headache frequency: nonusers: 3.2 days/month, previous users: 4.3 days/month, current nondependent users: 5.6 days/month, and current probable dependence users: 8.6 days/month. The prevalence of depression and anxiety was highest among current users with probable dependence. Rates of headache-related HRU were higher for all opioid-use groups for emergency department/urgent care, primary care, and specialty care visits compared to nonusers. Conclusions.- Opioid use for migraine is associated with more severe headache-related disability, symptomology, comorbidities (depression, anxiety, and cardiovascular disease and events), and greater HRU for headache. Longitudinal studies are needed to further assess the directionality and causality between opioid use and the outcomes we examined. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines and compares healthcare resource utilization and related costs among patients with chronic migraine and episodic migraine in the U.S. and Canada. Headache-specific medication, healthcare provider visits, emergency department visits, and diagnostic testing were the common medical services utilized. Chronic migraine was determined to be linked to higher medical resource use and total costs compared with episodic migraine.

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a case study on the calculation of employer costs for lost productive time (LPT) in episodic and chronic migraine in the U.S. It notes that the distribution of employed migraine sufferers by number of days with headache has allowed for the estimation of LPT costs from migraine. It mentions that persistent losses to productive time can result from symptomatic conditions.

The article presents a study on the longitudinal change in headache days of migraine and the indirect cost consequences. It mentions that two questions regarding missed number of workdays and total numbers at work were used to estimate the lost productive time (LPT) of migraine sufferers. Results show that the relationship headache days over a year and LPT is directly linear.