Friedman, Deborah I.

Abstract Objectives/Background This study was undertaken to review the published literature and provide a position statement from the American Headache Society regarding the safety, efficacy, and impact on access to care of telemedicine for the clinical management of patients with headache disorders. Access to specialized care in headache medicine is severely limited in the United States and worldwide. Telemedicine has been used as an approach to care delivery in headache medicine for more than a decade, with accelerated adoption during the COVID‐19 pandemic. There is now uncertainty regarding the extent to which telemedicine will be accepted by health systems and reimbursed by payers moving forward. The purpose of this position statement is to summarize evidence and clinical experience supporting the utility of telemedicine in headache medicine. Methods Evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of telemedicine, and patient and clinician satisfaction with the use of telemedicine for headache specialty care, was gathered from a variety of sources, including PubMed, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov . The results and conclusions based upon these results were reviewed and discussed by the authors and the Board of Directors of the American Headache Society to confirm consistency with clinical experience and to achieve consensus. Results Several randomized clinical trials and observational studies have been performed to compare telemedicine with in‐person visits in the management of patients with headache disorders. These studies showed consistently that telemedicine is noninferior to in‐person care based upon multiple outcome measures, including disability measures, patient satisfaction, and clinician satisfaction. In addition, these studies found that telemedicine rarely leads to a missed diagnosis of secondary headache or mismanagement of primary headache. Telemedicine has substantial advantages for patients, including improved access to care and reduced costs associated with obtaining care. Studies evaluating health care utilization indicate no significant differences between patients evaluated and treated virtually versus in person. Obvious limitations of telemedicine include the inability to perform an in‐person physical exam or to perform injections. For a substantial number of patients, however, these limitations are outweighed by its advantages. The experience with telemedicine reported in the literature is consistent with the experience of the Board of Directors of the American Headache Society, who endorse its use for patients when feasible and appropriate. Conclusion Telemedicine has significantly advanced the care of patients with headache disorders. Its further development and deployment should be supported and reimbursed.

Abstract Objective The objective of this study was to summarize the available evidence regarding the clinical value and trend over time of lumbar cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) opening pressure utilization to diagnose spontaneous intracranial hypotension (SIH). Background CSF opening pressure obtained via lumbar puncture is one of the diagnostic criteria for SIH based on the International Criteria for Headache Disorders, 3rd Edition (ICHD‐3), but it has questionable utility as an initial investigation for diagnosing SIH. Methods The authors performed a systematic literature review and meta‐analysis. PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library were searched from inception to October 2022. Original studies and case series in English reporting three or more patients with suspected or known SIH and CSF pressure measurement were included. Meta‐analyses and meta‐regression were used to calculate pooled estimates and examine the impact of age, sex, and publication year on outcomes, including CSF pressure < 60 mm CSF, orthostatic headache, and positive findings on brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), spinal imaging, and radionuclide studies. Results For every 1‐year increase in the year of publication, the odds of reporting low CSF pressure decreased by 6.20% (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.94, aOR 95% confidence interval [CI] = [0.90, 0.97], p = 0.001), the odds of reporting a positive brain MRI increased by 4.67% (aOR = 1.05, aOR 95% CI = [1.01, 1.09], p = 0.026), and the odds of reporting orthostatic headache increased by 9.13% (aOR = 1.09, aOR 95% CI = [1.03, 1.15], p = 0.002). Each 1% increase in the percentage of patients with orthostatic headache was associated with a 3.13% increase in the odds of low CSF pressure (aOR = 1.03, aOR 95% CI = [1.01, 1.05], p = 0.003). Similarly, as the percentage of patients with low CSF pressure increased by 1%, there was a 2.53% increase in the odds of orthostatic headache (aOR = 1.03, aOR 95% CI = [1.01, 1.04], p = 0.005). It was estimated that 31.9% of patients with SIH had normal opening pressure (95% CI = [24.0%, 40.8%], prediction interval = [5.0%, 80.5%]). Every 1% increase in the percentage of patients with positive brain MRI was associated with a 5.25% increase in the odds of positive spinal imaging (aOR = 1.05, aOR 95% CI = [1.00, 1.11], p = 0.047). Age and positive radionuclide study did not significantly impact the outcomes measured. The corresponding I 2 for each outcome was reduced by controlling for study‐wide covariates believed to impact the prevalence of each outcome. Sensitivity analyses did not reveal discrepancies in results when studies requiring outcomes of interest were removed. Conclusion Our analysis found that recent studies indicate a reduced reliance on opening pressure for diagnosing SIH. Rather, results suggest an increasing reliance on contrast‐enhanced brain MRI, spine imaging, and clinical features for SIH diagnosis.

Abstract Objective Our objectives were to examine cross‐sectional correlations of headache disability with measures of resilience, anxiety, and depression, and to determine if resilience modified the association between headache severity/frequency and disability. Background Resilience is associated with quality of life and functioning among patients with chronic conditions. We investigated whether resilience strongly mitigates headache‐related disability as measured by the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS). Methods We prospectively recruited 160 patients with primary headache disorders seen in a tertiary headache medicine program between February 20, 2018 and August 2, 2019. Each participant completed the MIDAS, Conner Davidson Resilience Scale (CDRS‐25), Patient Health Questionnaire‐9 (PHQ‐9), Generalized Anxiety Disorder‐7 (GAD‐7), and WHO‐5 Well‐Being Index. Results The CDRS‐25 score was negatively correlated with the total MIDAS ( r = −0.21, p = 0.009), GAD‐7 ( r = −0.56, p < 0.001), and PHQ‐9 scores ( r = −0.34, p < 0.001). Well‐being inversely correlated with disability ( r = −0.37, p < 0.001). Increases in anxiety and depression increased the odds of disability. A 1 point increase in the CDRS‐25 score decreased the odds of being severely disabled by 4% (OR = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.94 to 0.99, p = 0.001). However, the CDRS‐25 score did not significantly moderate the association between headache days and disability. Conclusion Traits associated with resilience decreased the odds of severe disability from headaches, whereas anxiety, depression, and headache frequency were strongly associated with higher disability from headache.