Robblee, Jennifer

Introduction Access to headache consultations by a headache specialist is limited. E‐consultations are an efficient approach shown to reduce costs and improve continuity of care with the primary care provider. Indications, suitability, and uptake in the headache population are not well studied. Methods This quality improvement pilot aims to explore the appropriateness of e‐consultations for patients referred to a headache specialist. E‐consultation feasibility was explored through (1) retrospective review of completed face‐to‐face consultations; (2) prospective survey of providers to identify face‐to‐face consultations appropriate for e‐consultation; (3) cross‐sectional review of the current waiting list to assess theoretical triaging to face‐to‐face vs e‐consultation; and (4) prospective review of all e‐consultations requested from an academic headache clinic to improve the understanding of e‐consultation feasibility and referral triage. Results The retrospective review included 75 face‐to‐face consultations with a mean (SD) wait time of 33 (39.4) days for consultations, of which 28/75 (37.3%) were deemed to be feasible e‐consultations. The prospective survey of providers identified 10 face‐to‐face consultations that were felt to be theoretically appropriate for e‐consultation. The cross‐sectional review identified 20 patients on the clinic waiting list, of whom 5/20 (25%) were theoretically triaged to e‐consultation. Finally, the prospective review found 12 requested e‐consultations, of which 6/12 (50%) were for migraine prophylaxis recommendations. Chart data often lacked details for complete assessments, with 5/12 (41.7%) converted to face‐to‐face consultations and only 4/12 (33.3%) deemed appropriate for e‐consultation. Conclusion E‐consultation in headache medicine could be considered if appropriately triaged. Pathways are needed to reach patients earlier in their disease course to ensure headache care meets guideline recommendations, and e‐consultation is 1 option. However, better communication with primary care is required for system optimization.

Background Erenumab, a calcitonin gene‐related peptide (CGRP) receptor monoclonal antibody, has been well tolerated with good efficacy for the preventive treatment of episodic and chronic migraine in phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trials. Limited post‐market observations are available to validate these findings in a real‐world tertiary headache clinic population with complex comorbidities and refractory migraine. Objective The goal of this study is to demonstrate the real‐world performance of erenumab among patients in a tertiary care headache clinic by describing patient selection, experience, and clinical characteristics after 6 months of erenumab therapy. Methods A retrospective, exploratory, observational study was conducted on patients receiving at least 1 erenumab injection (70 or 140 mg). Baseline data obtained by chart review and telephone calls were compared to 6‐month follow‐up telephone calls. The primary outcome was the reduction in self‐reported headache days per month at baseline compared to 6 months for those with complete 6‐month data. The significance level was set at P < .05. Secondary analyses explored the distribution of headache severity, responder rates, Migraine Disability Assessment scores, adverse effects, ineffective preventives, comorbidities, wearing‐off, and discontinuation. Results Of the 101 patients who consented to participate, 89.1% (90/101) were women, and the mean age of all patients was 49 years (range, 19‐80 years). At baseline, 94.1% (95/101) of patients had chronic migraine, 5.0% (5/101) had episodic migraine, and 18.8% (19/101) had medication overuse headache. The mean (SD) number of baseline headache and migraine days per month for the entire cohort were 24.3 (8.2) and 18.2 (9.3) days, respectively. Participants had numerous comorbidities and had tried a mean of 11.2 unique oral medications and 4.8 unique medication categories before receiving erenumab, including 83.2% (84/101) who had also received onabotulinumtoxinA. Six‐month post‐erenumab follow‐up data were available for 42.6% (43/101) of participants. For these 43 participants, the number of headache days per month decreased significantly by 6.5 days from a baseline mean (SD) of 24.8 (6.47) days to 18.3 (12) days at 6‐month follow‐up ( P < .001); similarly, the monthly migraine days decreased significantly by 8.4 days from a baseline mean of 19.1 (9.3) days to 10.7 days at 6‐month follow‐up ( P < .001). The 50% responder rate was 34.9% (15/43) for monthly headache days and 54.8% (23/43) for monthly migraine days. Of all 101 participants, 28 (27.7%) discontinued erenumab, primarily because it was ineffective (39.3%, 11/28) or because of adverse effects (42.9%, 12/28). Conclusion This post‐market observational study of patient experience describes response to erenumab in a real‐world tertiary headache clinic with a complex patient population. Overall, these complex patients had a significant positive clinical response to erenumab, but with high rates of discontinuation. This study also noted a 1‐week wearing‐off response and high rates of constipation. Further post‐market studies are needed to better characterize patient selection and real‐world response to erenumab.

On March 11, 2020, the infection caused by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) virus was declared a pandemic. Throughout this pandemic, healthcare professionals (HCPs) have experienced difficulties stemming from poor communications, resource scarcity, lack of transparency, disbelief, and threats to the safety of their loved ones, their patients, and themselves. As part of these hardships, negative statements have been heard repeatedly. This paper describes 11 scenarios of unhelpful and dysfunctional messages heard by the authors and their colleagues during the COVID‐19 pandemic, reported to us by a combination of peers, administrative leadership, and the public. We explain why not to use such messaging, and we suggest more helpful and compassionate expressions based upon recommendations published by scientific organizations and well‐established psychological principles. The first 10 scenarios discussed include (1) lack of understanding regarding the extent of the pandemic; (2) shaming over not seeing patients in person; (3) lack of clear and consistent communication from leadership on pandemic‐related practice changes; (4) opinions that personal protective equipment (PPE) use by HCPs causes fear or is unnecessary; (5) forcing in‐person care without appropriate PPE; (6) the risk of exposure to asymptomatic individuals as it relates to opening clinics; (7) media gag orders; (8) pay and benefit reductions; (9) spreading of misinformation about the COVID‐19 pandemic; and (10) workload expectations. The 11th scenario addresses HCPs’ psychological and physical reactions to this challenging and prolonged stressful situation. We close by discussing the need for support and compassion at this difficult and unpredictable time and by offering suggestions to foster resilience and feelings of self‐efficacy among HCPs.