Burish, Mark J.

Abstract Background Neuro-oncology education in American neurology departments is highly variable, with no clear guidelines on appropriate practices. To better understand its current state, we focus on the perspective of departmental Grand Rounds (GR), views of adult neurology residency program directors (ANRPD), neuro-oncologists, and residents. Methods First, we obtained GR series from academic years 2017–2018 and 2018–2019 via an online search and direct emails to neurology residency programs. Second, two online surveys were dispensed to ANRPD and neuro-oncologists. Third, a cohort of neurology residents completed surveys with pre/post-didactic tests. Results Neuro-oncology consisted of 7% (28/ 411) GR in 2017–2018 and 6% (29/463) in 2018–2019; approximately 20% of institutions had no neuro-oncology GR. Twenty neuro-oncologists and 25 of the 175 ANRPDs completed the surveys. Respondents thought 1-to-4 GR annually was adequate. Thirty-five residents completed the survey. Residents might consider neuro-oncology with more exposure (77%, 27/35) and a stronger knowledge base (57%, 20/35). After 8-hours of didactics, residents demonstrated significant (P = .019) pre-/post-test improvement. Conclusions Here, we begin to define the status of several aspects of neuro-oncology education: 1 in 5 academic institutions do not have any neuro-oncology GR lectures annually, and both ANRPDs and neuro-oncologists agree that 1-to-4 lectures annually are adequate. Residents overwhelmingly stated they would be more interested in neuro-oncology with more exposure, and a pilot study of 8 hours of didactic did show knowledge improvement. While these initial datasets require confirmation in larger studies, it suggests that small changes to the current state at some institutions could have a meaningful impact.

Abstract Background. Patients with migraine often have poor sleep quality between and during migraine attacks. Furthermore, extensive research has identified photophobia as the most common and most bothersome symptom in individuals with migraine, second only to headache. Seeking the comfort of darkness is a common strategy for managing pain during an attack and preventing its recurrence between episodes. Given the well-established effects of daily light exposure on circadian activity rhythms and sleep quality, this study aims to investigate the relationship between photophobia symptoms and sleep quality in a cohort of patients with migraine. Methods. A cross-sectional observational study was conducted using existing data extracted from the American Registry for Migraine Research (ARMR). Participants with a migraine diagnosis who had completed the baseline questionnaires (Photosensitivity Assessment Questionnaire (PAQ), Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7), Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2)), and selected questions of the ARMR Sleep questionnaire were included. Models were created to describe the relationship of photophobia and photophilia with various sleep facets, including sleep quality (SQ), sleep disturbance (SDis), sleep onset latency (SOL), and sleep-related impairments (SRI). Each model was controlled for age, sex, anxiety, and depression. Results. A total of 852 patients meeting the inclusion criteria were included in the analysis (mean age (SD) = 49.8 (13.9), 86.6% (n = 738) female). Those with photophobia exhibited significantly poorer sleep quality compared to patients without photophobia (p < 0.001). Photophobia scores were associated with SQ (p < 0.001), SDis (p < 0.001), SOL (p = 0.011), and SRI (p = 0.014), after controlling for age, sex, depression, and anxiety, signifying that higher levels of photophobia were associated with worse sleep-related outcomes. Conversely, photophilia scores were associated with better sleep-related outcomes for SQ (p < 0.001), SDis (p < 0.001), and SOL (p = 0.016). Conclusion. Results suggest that photophobia is a risk factor for sleep disorders in those with migraine. These results underscore the necessity for comprehensive and systematic investigations into the intricate interplay between photophobia and sleep to enhance our understanding and develop tailored solutions for individuals with migraine.

Abstract Objective To evaluate whether the 15‐day threshold of headache days per month adequately reflects substantial differences in disability across the full spectrum of migraine. Background The monthly frequency of headache days defines migraine subtypes and has crucial implications for epidemiological and clinical research as well as access to care. Methods The patients with migraine ( N = 836) who participated in the American Registry for Migraine Research, which is a multicenter, longitudinal patient registry, between February 2016 and March 2020, were divided into four groups based on monthly headache frequency: Group 1 (0–7 headache days/month, n = 286), Group 2 (8–14 headache days/month, n = 180), Group 3 (15–23 headache days/month, n = 153), Group 4 (≥24 headache days/month, n = 217). Disability (MIDAS), Pain intensity (NRS), Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI), Pain Interference (PROMIS‐PI), Patient Health Questionnaire‐4 (PHQ‐4), and General Anxiety Disorder‐7 (GAD‐7) scores were compared. Results Mean (standard deviation [SD]) age was 46 (13) years (87.9% [735/836] female). The proportion of patients in each group was as follows: Group 1 (34.2% [286/836]), Group 2 (21.5% [180/836]), Group 3 (18.3% [153/836]), and Group 4 (26.0% [217/836]). There were significant relationships with increasing disability, lost productive time, and pain interference in higher headache frequency categories. There were no significant differences between Group 2 and Group 3 for most measures (NRS, all WPAI scores, PROMIS‐PI, GAD‐7, and PHQ‐4), although MIDAS scores differed (median [interquartile range (IQR)]; 38 [20–58] vs. 55 [30–90], p < 0.001). Patients in Group 1 had significantly lower MIDAS (median [IQR];16 [7–30], p < 0.001), WPAI‐% total active impairment (mean (SD): Group 1 [30.9 (26.8)] vs. Group 2 [39.2 (24.5), p = 0.017], vs. Group 3 [45.9 (24.1), p < 0.001], vs. Group 4 [55.3 (23.0), p < 0.001], and PROMIS‐PI‐T score (Group 1 [60.3 (7.3)] vs. Group 2 [62.6 (6.4), p = 0.008], vs. Group 3 [64.6 (5.6), p < 0.001], vs. Group 4 [66.8 (5.9), p < 0.001]) compared to all other groups. Patients in Group 4 had significantly higher MIDAS (median (IQR): Group 4 [90 (52–138)] vs. Group 1 [16 (7–30), p < 0.001], vs. Group 2 [38 (20–58), p < 0.001], vs. Group 3 [55 (30–90), p < 0.001], WPAI‐%Presenteeism (Group 4 [50.4 (24.4)] vs. Group 1 [28.8 (24.9), p < 0.001], vs. Group 2 [34.9 (22.3), p < 0.001], vs. Group 3 [40.9 (22.3), p = 0.048], WPAI‐% total work productivity impairment (Group 4 [55.9 (26.1)] vs. Group 1 [32.1 (37.6), p < 0.001], vs. Group 2 [38.3 (24.0), p < 0.001], vs. Group 3 [44.6 (24.4), p = 0.019]), and WPAI‐%Total activity impairment (Group 4 [55.3 (23.0)] vs. Group 1 [30.9 (26.8), p < 0.001], vs. Group 2 [39.2 (24.5), p < 0.001], vs. Group 3 [45.9 (24.1), p = 0.025]) scores compared with all other groups. Conclusion Our data suggest that the use of a 15 headache day/month threshold to distinguish episodic and chronic migraine does not capture the burden of illness nor reflect the treatment needs of patients. These results have important implications for future refinements in the classification of migraine.

Abstract Objective To quantify the proportion of headache‐related grand rounds in academic neurology programs and to compare this with adult neurology residency director views on the need for an increase in headache‐related grand rounds. Background Although headache are among the most prevalent and most burdensome neurologic conditions, headache medicine is often considered underrepresented in neurology departments. Additionally, prior studies have shown that many neurology residency directors feel that training programs do not include an adequate amount of exposure to headache clinics or headache‐related didactics. One important aspect of didactic education in neurology departments is adult neurology grand rounds. Previous publications have evaluated neither the proportion of headache‐related grand rounds in academic neurology departments nor the residency program directors’ views on appropriate amount of headache‐related grand rounds. Our study has attempted to quantify this information to elucidate opportunities to improve practice educational gaps. Methods In this cross‐sectional study, we surveyed adult neurology residency directors (from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education [ACGME] listing of academic adult neurology residency programs) between October 2018 and September 2019. In addition, we used two methods to obtain the proportion of headache‐related grand rounds in neurology: (1) emailing residency directors a questionnaire asking for a list of prior grand rounds topics and (2) an online search for each academic neurology program. Results First, for our grand rounds analysis, headache medicine consisted of 3.7% of the lectures in 2017–2018 and 6.3% of the lectures in 2018–2019 (average of each institution; 17 institutions and 411 total lectures in 2017–2018, 21 institutions and 463 total lectures in 2018–2019). The most common number of lectures on headache medicine for each grand rounds series was zero (for 7 of 17 grand rounds series in 2017–2018 and 7 of 21 in 2018–2019), followed closely by one lecture (for 6 of 17 grand rounds series in 2017–2018 and 6 of 21 in 2018–2019). Second, for our survey, the response rate was 19.3% (29/150). No residency director thought their institution had too many grand rounds dedicated to headache medicine, and 62.1% (18/29) thought they had an adequate amount of headache grand rounds. Within the survey responders, 75.9% (22/29) of adult neurology residency programs have a board‐certified headache specialist at their institution. Conclusions Although most adult neurology residency directors believe that headache is adequately represented in adult neurology grand rounds, headache medicine makes up 4%–6% of all neurology grand rounds. Compared with other neurology subspecialties and the other core ACGME milestones, headache makes up the fewest grand rounds lectures that were assessed in this study.

Background The American Registry for Migraine Research (ARMR) is a multicenter, prospective, longitudinal patient registry, biorepository, and neuroimaging repository that collects clinical data, electronic health record (EHR) data, blood samples, and brain imaging data from individuals with migraine or other headache types. In this manuscript, we outline ARMR research methods and report baseline data describing an initial cohort of ARMR participants. Methods Adults with any International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD) diagnosis were prospectively enrolled from one of the 8 participating headache specialty centers. At baseline, ARMR participants complete web‐based questionnaires, clinicians enter the participant’s ICHD diagnoses, an optional blood specimen is collected, and neuroimaging data are uploaded to the ARMR neuroimaging repository. Participants maintain the ARMR daily headache diary longitudinally and follow‐up questionnaires are completed by participants every 3 months. EHR data are integrated into the ARMR database from a subset of ARMR sites. Herein, we describe the ARMR methodology and report the summary data from ARMR participants who had, from February 2016 to May 2019, completed at least 1 baseline questionnaire from which data are reported in this manuscript. Descriptive statistics are used to provide an overview of patient’s sociodemographics, headache diagnoses, headache characteristics, most bothersome symptoms other than headache, headache‐related disability, comorbidities, and treatments. Results Data were available from 996 ARMR participants, enrolled from Mayo Clinic Arizona, Dartmouth‐Hitchcock Medical Center, University of Utah, University of Colorado, Thomas Jefferson University, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Georgetown University Medical Center, and DENT Neurological Institute. Among ARMR participants, 86.7% (n = 864) were female and the mean age at the time of enrollment was 48.6 years (±13.9; range 18‐84). The most common provider‐reported diagnosis was chronic migraine (n = 622), followed by migraine without aura (n = 327), migraine with aura (n = 196), and medication overuse headache (n = 65). Average headache frequency was 19.1 ± 9.2 days per month (n = 751), with 68% reporting at least 15 headache days per month. Sensitivity to light was the most frequent (n = 222) most bothersome symptom overall, other than headache, but when present, cognitive dysfunction was most frequently (n = 157) the most bothersome symptom other than headache. Average migraine disability assessment (MIDAS) score was 52 ± 49 (n = 760), (very severe headache‐related disability); however, 17% of the ARMR population had MIDAS scores suggesting “no” or “mild” disability. The most common non‐headache health issues were allergies (n = 364), back pain (n = 296), neck pain (n = 296), depression (n = 292), and anxiety (n = 278). Nearly 85% (n = 695) of patients were using preventive medications and 24.7% were using non‐medication preventive therapy (eg, vitamins and neuromodulation). The most common preventive medication classes were neurotoxins, anticonvulsants, antidepressants, vitamins/supplements, and anticalcitonin gene‐related peptide ligand or receptor‐targeted monoclonal antibodies. Nearly 90% (n = 734) of ARMR participants was taking medications to treat migraine attacks, with the most common classes being triptans, non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs, antiemetics, acetaminophen, and combination analgesics. Conclusions ARMR is a source of real‐world patient data, biospecimens, and brain neuroimaging data that provides comprehensive insight into patients with migraine and other headache types being seen in headache specialty clinics in the United States. ARMR data will allow for longitudinal and advanced analytics that are expected to lead to a better characterization of patient heterogeneity, healthcare resource utilization, identification of endophenotypes, factors that predict treatment outcomes and clinical course, and ultimately advance the field toward precision headache medicine.