Lalvani, Nim

Abstract 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.

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 We sought to investigate the patient experience of telemedicine for headache care during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic. Background The use of telemedicine has rapidly expanded and evolved since the beginning of the COVID‐19 pandemic. Telemedicine eliminates the physical and geographic barriers to health care, preserves personal protective equipment, and prevents the spread of COVID‐19 by allowing encounters to happen in a socially distanced way. However, few studies have assessed the patient perspective of telemedicine for headache care. Methods The American Migraine Foundation (AMF) designed a standardized electronic questionnaire to assess the patient experience of telemedicine for headache care between March and September 2020 to help inform future quality improvement as part of its patient advocacy initiative. The date parameters were identified as the emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 disease and the declaration of a national emergency in the United States. The questionnaire was distributed electronically to more than 100,000 members of the AMF community through social media platforms and the AMF email database. Results A total of 1172 patients responded to our electronic questionnaire, with 1098 complete responses. The majority, 1081/1153 (93.8%) patients, had a previous headache diagnosis prior to the telemedicine encounter. A total of 648/1127 (57.5%) patients reported that they had used telemedicine for headache care during the study period. Among those who participated in telehealth visits, 553/647 (85.5%) patients used it for follow‐up visits; 94/647 (14.5%) patients used it for new patient visits. During the telemedicine encounters, 282/645 (43.7%) patients were evaluated by headache specialists, 222/645 (34.4%) patients by general neurologists, 198/645 (30.7%) patients by primary care providers, 73/645 (11.3%) patients by headache nurse practitioners, and 21/645 (3.2%) patients by headache nurses. Only 47/633 (7.4%) patients received a new headache diagnosis from telemedicine evaluation, whereas the other 586/633 (92.6%) patients did not have a change in their diagnoses. During these visits, a new treatment was prescribed for 358/636 (52.3%) patients, whereas 278/636 (43.7%) patients did not have changes made to their treatment plan. The number (%) of patients who rated the telemedicine headache care experience as “very good,” “good,” “fair,” “poor,” and “other” were 396/638 (62.1%), 132/638 (20.7%), 67/638 (10.5%), 23/638 (3.6%), and 20/638 (3.1%), respectively. Detailed reasons for “other” are listed in the manuscript. Most patients, 573/638 (89.8%), indicated that they would prefer to continue to use telemedicine for their headache care, 45/638 (7.1%) patients would not, and 20/638 (3.1%) patients were unsure. Conclusions Our study evaluating the patient perspective demonstrated that telemedicine facilitated headache care for many patients during the COVID‐19 pandemic, resulting in high patient satisfaction rates, and a desire to continue to use telemedicine for future headache care among those who completed the online survey.