Search

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]

Background: This study reviewed migraine prevalence and disability gathered through epidemiologic survey studies in the United States conducted over the past three decades. We summarized these studies and evaluated changing patterns of disease prevalence and disability. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of US studies addressing the prevalence, disability, and/or burden of migraine, including both episodic migraine (EM) and chronic migraine (CM). A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) protocol was used in conjunction with the PubMed search engine. Eligible studies were published before February 2022, were conducted in the United States, included representative samples, and used a case definition of migraine based on the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD). The primary measure of disease burden was the Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS). The MIDAS measures days lost due to migraine over 3 months in three domains and defines groups with moderate (Grade III) or severe disability (Grade IV) using cut‐scores. Results: Of the 1609 identified records, 26 publications from 11 US population‐based studies met eligibility criteria. The prevalence of migraine in the population has remained relatively consistent for the past 30 years: ranging from 11.7% to 14.7% overall, 17.1% to 19.2% in women, and 5.6% to 7.2% in men in the studies reviewed. CM prevalence is 0.91% (1.3% among women and 0.5% of men) in adults and 0.8% in adolescents. The proportion of people with migraine and moderate‐to‐severe MIDAS disability (Grades III–IV), has trended upward across studies from 22.0% in 2005 to 39.0% in 2012, to 43.2% in 2016, and 42.4% in 2018. A consistently higher proportion of women were assigned MIDAS Grades III/IV relative to men. Conclusion: The prevalence of migraine in the United States has remained stable over the past three decades while migraine‐related disability has increased. The disability trend could reflect changes in reporting, study methodology, social and societal changes, or changes in exacerbating or remediating factors that make migraine more disabling, among other hypotheses. These issues merit further investigation. Plain Language Summary: We reviewed 11 population‐based studies that adhered to the International Classification of Headache Disorders to examine the prevalence and burden of migraine in the United States. While the prevalence of migraine has remained stable at ~12% of adults for the past 30 years (with higher rates in women), the burden of migraine, including disability and impact on work, academics, and social life, appears to be increasing. The escalating burden of migraine may result from factors like increased headache frequency or changes in study methodology, indicating a need for more population studies. [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]

This article explores the relationship between parental mental health characteristics and the migraine status of their children. Previous studies have suggested that parental psychological symptoms may contribute to the development and maintenance of migraine in children. However, these studies often did not account for parental migraine status, leading to confounding factors. In this study, researchers found that parents with migraine did not have increased symptoms of anxiety or depression compared to parents without migraine. These findings suggest that there may be no inherent causal relationship between parental mental health and their child's migraine status. The study emphasizes the importance of considering parental migraine status when investigating the heritability of migraine and its comorbidities. [Extracted from the article]

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