Digre, Kathleen B.

Abstract Objective This study aimed to understand the factors limiting access to medications for the preventive treatment of migraine and to improve access to evidence‐based preventive care. Background For decades, the effective use of medication for the preventive treatment of migraine was limited by slow onset, slow and complex dose titration schedules, modest benefits, drug interactions, frequent side effects, and very low long‐term adherence. The calcitonin gene‐related peptide (CGRP) targeted preventive medications mitigate some of these limitations and demonstrated substantial therapeutic benefits in a significant proportion of adults with migraine. The American Headache Society considers these medications among the first‐line options for migraine prevention, although access to them remains limited. The American Migraine Foundation hosted a single‐day, multidisciplinary expert panel discussion to identify barriers to optimal preventive care and developed recommendations to address them. Methods Participants identified and prioritized barriers and used a modified nominal group technique to achieve consensus on them. A series of moderated discussions in plenary and breakout sessions was used to create possible solutions. Modified nominal group technique was also employed to achieve consensus on the priorities among these barriers and to achieve whole‐group consensus on the recommendations. Ethical issues that inform access were discussed. Results Participants included eight neurologists and board‐certified headache specialists, six representatives of reimbursement decision‐makers, six employees of life sciences companies, four patient advocates with lived experience with migraine, and a medical ethicist. Among those who have consulted healthcare professionals and received a diagnosis of migraine, we identified four main barriers to accessing preventive treatment: restrictive prior authorization requirements, the perceived lack of real‐world evidence and treatment guidelines, the need for clinician education, and the need for patient education. Consensus recommendations for eliminating barriers centered on using new evidence to evaluate policies that restrict the selection of first‐line therapies, initiating/improving collaboration among stakeholders, sharing of data and best practices, and increased training. Participants agreed to explore novel definitions of the value of preventive treatment and to establish the Migraine Prevention Network to facilitate ongoing cooperation and collective action. However, due to financial limitations, staffing changes, and time constraints, post‐meeting discussions led to a shift from establishing a broad Migraine Prevention Network to forming smaller task forces focused on the top‐priority barriers (real‐world evidence and The Patient Playbook ) identified through collaborative voting among American Headache Society, American Migraine Foundation, and industry stakeholders. Conclusions Adults with migraine face multiple barriers in accessing novel migraine‐specific, CGRP‐targeted preventive treatment. Stakeholders in the delivery of care, including clinicians, reimbursement decision‐makers, life sciences companies, and patient and clinician advocates, may be able to overcome many of these barriers and improve access by working with and on behalf of patients.

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 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 investigate the impact of having headaches prior to traumatic brain injury (TBI) on headache features and long‐term patient health outcomes. Background and Methods This was an exploratory analysis of patients with TBI who were enrolled in the American Registry for Migraine Research (ARMR), a multicenter, prospective, longitudinal patient registry composed of patients with International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition (ICHD‐3)–defined headache diagnoses. The ARMR study enrolled 2,707 patients between February 1, 2016 and May 6, 2020, 565 of whom qualified for this analysis. Those with headaches prior to their TBI were compared to those without headaches prior to their TBI for ICHD‐3 diagnoses, headache frequency and intensity, headache‐related disability (Migraine Disability Assessment score), symptoms of anxiety (General Anxiety Disorder [GAD‐7]), depression (two items from Patient Health Questionnaire‐9), post‐traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), cutaneous allodynia (12‐item Allodynia Symptom Checklist [ASC‐12]), cognitive dysfunction (Migraine Attacks Subjective Cognitive Impairments Scale [Mig‐SCog]), pain interference (Patient‐Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System‐Pain Interference), and work productivity (Work Productivity and Activity Impairment). Results Among 565 participants with TBI, 350 had headaches prior to their TBI. Those with pre‐TBI headaches were less likely to receive a diagnosis of post‐traumatic headache (PTH; 14/350 [4.0%] vs. 21/215 [9.8%], p = 0.006), even though 25.7% reported new or worsening headaches within 7 days of their TBI. Those with pre‐TBI headaches had higher ASC‐12 scores (2.4 ± 3.5 vs. 1.8 ± 3.4, p = 0.030), Mig‐SCog scores (9.3 ± 4.7 vs. 8 ± 4.9, p = 0.004), and GAD‐7 scores (6.9 ± 5.1 vs. 6.2 ± 5.4, p = 0.039), and were more likely to have a migraine diagnosis (335/350 [95.7%] vs. 192/215 [89.3%], p = 0.003). Conclusions Those with headaches prior to TBI are less likely to receive a diagnosis of PTH. They have more severe symptoms of cutaneous allodynia, cognitive impairment, and generalized anxiety. This analysis suggests that pre‐TBI headaches might impact post‐TBI headache diagnoses and associated features.

Objective “Pain interference” and “headache impact” refer to negative consequences that pain and headache have on one’s life. This study investigated determinants of these negative impacts in a large patient cohort who have chronic migraine with medication overuse. Methods Six hundred and eleven adults were enrolled from 34 headache, neurology, and primary care clinics. Negative consequences of chronic migraine with medication overuse were determined using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Pain Interference 6b questionnaire and the Headache Impact Test 6. Relationships between PROMIS-6b and Headache Impact Test 6 scores with demographics, headache characteristics, medication use, anxiety symptoms, and depression symptoms were assessed with linear regression. Elastic Net regression was used to develop a multiple regression model. Results PROMIS-6b T-Scores averaged 65.2 (SD 5.4) and Headache Impact Test 6 scores averaged 65.0 (SD 5.3), indicating severe negative consequences of chronic migraine with medication overuse. Chronic migraine with medication overuse interfered with enjoyment of life, concentration, daily activities, doing tasks away from home, and socializing. Depression symptom severity had the strongest relationship with pain interference and headache impact. Moderate-to-severe headache frequency, headache intensity, and anxiety symptoms were also associated with pain interference and headache impact. Conclusions Chronic migraine with medication overuse is associated with substantial negative consequences, the extent of which is most strongly related to depression symptoms.

Abstract Objective To describe headache characteristics, medication use, disability, and quality of life in a large patient cohort from the United States who have chronic migraine (CM) and medication overuse headache (MOH). Methods In all, 610 adult patients were enrolled into the Medication Overuse Treatment Strategy trial from 34 healthcare clinics, including headache specialty, general neurology, and primary care clinics. Descriptive statistics characterize baseline demographics, headache characteristics, medication use, disability (Headache Impact Test 6 [HIT‐6] and Migraine Functional Impact Questionnaire [MFIQ]), pain interference (PROMIS Pain Interference), and quality of life (EQ‐5D‐5L). Relationships with headache frequency were assessed. Results Mean age was 45 years (SD 13) and 531/608 (87.3%) were females. Mean headache days per 30 was 24.3 (SD 5.5), including 13.6 (SD 7.1) with moderate to severe headache. Daily headaches were reported by 36.1% (219/607) of patients. Acute headache medications were used on 21.5 (SD 7.5) per 30 days. The most commonly overused medications were simple analgesics (378/607, 62% of patients), combination analgesics (246/607, 41%), and triptans (128/607, 21%). HIT‐6, MFIQ, PROMIS Pain Interference, and EQ‐5D‐5L scores demonstrated substantial negative impact from CM with MOH on patient functioning and quality of life. Higher headache frequency was associated with more moderate–severe headache days, more frequent acute headache medication use, greater headache‐related disability, and lower quality of life. Only 272/606 (44.9%) were taking migraine preventive medication. Conclusions CM with MOH is associated with a large burden on patients in the United States. Higher headache frequency is associated with greater impact on functioning, pain interference, and quality of life.

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.

Background: The sex- and gender-specific health (SGSH) multimedia case-based learning modules (MCBLMs) were developed to address the absence of validated or peer-reviewed material that incorporates topics of sex and gender differences into medical curricula. This article provides the methodology for development of the modules and reports the results of a field test of the modules in different medical educational settings. Methods: MCBLMs were created by a multidisciplinary committee of scientists, health profession educators, and students. Two modules, osteoporosis and diabetes, were tested in various settings based on the curricular needs at each of the five accredited institutions. Each module consisted of a pretest and three interactive, multimedia stand-alone sections with post-tests. Scores on the tests were compared using a paired-samples t -test. A postmodule survey was used to evaluate the format. Results: Four hundred eighteen students participated in the field testing. For the 194 who completed the osteoporosis module, the post-test scores (M = 13.71, standard deviation [SD] = 2.09) were significantly higher than the pretest scores (M = 10.54, SD = 2.41), p < 0.001. Post-test scores for the 285 who completed the diabetes module (M = 16.55, SD = 2.46) were also significantly higher than the pretest scores (M = 13.71, SD = 2.09), p < 0.001. The postmodule survey showed positive acceptance of the format with an average score of 3.54/4 for osteoporosis and 3.45/4 for diabetes. Conclusion: The SGSH MCBLM field testing results show that the modules have a positive effect on content knowledge in multiple settings and are well accepted by learners.