Search

Objective: To identify and disseminate research priorities for the headache field that should be areas of research focus during the next 10 years. Background: Establishing research priorities helps focus and synergize the work of headache investigators, allowing them to reach the most important research goals more efficiently and completely. Methods: The Headache Research Priorities organizing and executive committees and working group chairs led a multistakeholder and international group of experts to develop headache research priorities. The research priorities were developed and reviewed by clinicians, scientists, people with headache, representatives from headache organizations, health‐care industry representatives, and the public. Priorities were revised and finalized after receiving feedback from members of the research priorities working groups and after a public comment period. Results: Twenty‐five research priorities across eight categories were identified: human models, animal models, pathophysiology, diagnosis and management, treatment, inequities and disparities, research workforce development, and quality of life. The priorities address research models and methods, development and optimization of outcome measures and endpoints, pain and non‐pain symptoms of primary and secondary headaches, investigations into mechanisms underlying headache attacks and chronification of headache disorders, treatment optimization, research workforce recruitment, development, expansion, and support, and inequities and disparities in the headache field. The priorities are focused enough that they help to guide headache research and broad enough that they are widely applicable to multiple headache types and various research methods. Conclusions: These research priorities serve as guidance for headache investigators when planning their research studies and as benchmarks by which the headache field can measure its progress over time. These priorities will need updating as research goals are met and new priorities arise. Plain Language Summary: The American Headache Society led a large, international, multistakeholder process to identify headache research topics that should be prioritized during the next 10 years. With input from headache clinicians, scientists, people with headache, representatives from headache organizations, health‐care industry representatives, and the public, 25 research priorities within 8 categories were identified. These research priorities can help guide headache researchers when planning their studies and as benchmarks by which the headache field can measure its progress over time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Few studies of migraine have evaluated migraine disability across multiple countries using the same methodology. Methods: This cross-sectional, web-based survey was conducted in 2021–2022 in Canada, France, Germany, Japan, UK and USA. Respondents with migraine were identified based on modified International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition, criteria. Headache features (Migraine Symptom Severity Score (MSSS, range: 0–21), presence of allodynia (Allodynia Symptom Checklist, ASC-12)) and migraine burden (Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4), Migraine-Specific Quality of Life questionnaire version 2.1 (MSQ v2.1), Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) questionnaire) were evaluated. Results: Among 14,492 respondents with migraine across countries, the mean ± SD MSSS was 15.4 ± 3.2 and 48.5% (7026/14,492) of respondents had allodynia based on ASC-12. Of all respondents living with migraine, 35.5% (5146/14,492) reported moderate to severe anxiety and/or depression symptoms. Mean ± SD MSQ v2.1 Role Function–Restrictive, Role Function–Preventive and Emotional Function domain scores were 60.7 ± 22.9, 71.5 ± 23.0 and 65.1 ± 27.2, respectively. The WPAI mean ± SD percentages of respondents who missed work or worked impaired as a result of migraine were 6.8 ± 18.1% and 41.0 ± 30.1%, respectively. Conclusions: For every country surveyed, migraine was associated with high levels of symptom severity, with allodynia and with substantial burden. [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]

Plain Language Summary: In the past, research indicated that a parent's mental health symptoms may impact their child's migraine status; however, these studies do not usually hold constant whether the parents themselves have migraine. This study provided new data suggesting that when parents have migraine, the connection between parents' mental health symptoms and their child's migraine status may be less pronounced. Future studies investigating the heritability of migraine and its related mental health conditions may consider this approach when recruiting study participants. [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]