Buse, Dawn C.

Objectives To characterize unmet treatment needs in a sample of Migraine in America Symptoms and Treatment (MAST) Study participants using oral, acute prescription migraine medications. Background The MAST Study is a 2017 study of US adults with migraine that profiles current treatment patterns and identifies and quantifies unmet treatment needs. Methods Cross‐sectional data from an online survey of US adults meeting ICHD‐3 beta criteria for migraine. For inclusion in this paper, respondents self‐reported a history of 3 or more monthly headache days (MHDs) in the past 3 months and at least 1 MHD in the past 30 days, and current use of orally administered acute prescription medication for headache. Three domains of unmet need were identified: inadequate treatment response (ie, inadequate 2‐hour pain freedom, recurrence within 24 hours of initial relief), demanding attack characteristics (rapid onset of attack, headache associated with sleep), and unique patient characteristics (opioid or barbiturate overuse, cardiovascular comorbidity). Sociodemographics, oral medication use, and coexisting conditions and symptoms (ie, level of treatment optimization, psychological symptoms, attack‐related cutaneous allodynia, and migraine symptom severity) were assessed for each domain and by the number of unmet need domains. Results Overall, 15,133 respondents met inclusion criteria, 26.0% (3930/15,133) reported current use of oral acute prescription medication to treat headache. Eligible participants had a mean age of 45.0 years, 73.6% [2892/3930] were women and 81.1% [3186/3930]) were White. A total of 95.8% (3765/3930) of respondents had at least 1 unmet acute treatment need; 89.5% (3516/3930) reported demanding attack characteristics, 74.1% (2912/3930) reported inadequate treatment response, and 16.1% (634/3930) presented with unique patient characteristics. Common areas of unmet need were rapid headache onset (65.3% [2567/3930]), moderate to severe disability (55.6% [2187/3930]), inadequate 2‐hours pain freedom (49.0% [1892/3930]), and headache recurrence within 24 hours (38.0% [1493/3930]). An increasing number of unmet treatment need domains was associated with worsening psychological symptoms, attack‐related cutaneous allodynia and migraine symptom severity. Conclusion Nearly all MAST Study respondents using acute oral prescription medications for migraine reported at least 1 unmet treatment need. As unmet needs increased, so did coexisting conditions and symptom severity.

Background Cutaneous allodynia is a common clinical feature of migraine that has been associated with reduced efficacy of acute migraine treatments and an increased risk of disease progression. Objective Identify factors associated with allodynia in a sample of adults with migraine. Methods An online survey panel was used to identify adults with migraine who averaged at least 1 monthly headache day over the previous 3 months. Data on sociodemographics, headache frequency, headache pain intensity, migraine symptom severity, medication use, depression and anxiety, and cutaneous allodynia (via the Allodynia Symptom Checklist) were obtained. Binary logistic modeling predicted the presence of allodynia. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Results In total, 15,133 individuals with migraine met the eligibility criteria. Mean age was 43.1 years, 73.0% were female, and 81.0% were Caucasian. Allodynia was present in 39.9%. The fully adjusted model, controlling for sociodemographics and headache features, demonstrated that allodynia was significantly associated with a higher migraine symptom severity score (odds ratio 1.17, confidence interval 1.15, 1.19) and more severe pain intensity (odds ratio 1.11, confidence interval 1.08, 1.14); probable depression and/or anxiety (odds ratio 1.83, confidence interval 1.67, 2.00); and overuse of acute medication (odds ratio 1.23, confidence interval 1.09, 1.38). A higher number of monthly headache days increased the likelihood of allodynia, but the effect was attenuated in the fully adjusted model. Conclusion In a representative sample of US adults with migraine, there were significant associations between allodynia and headache frequency and intensity, anxiety and/or depression, symptom severity, and acute medication overuse.

Background Optimism and pessimism are related to several mental health and brain disorders, are significant predictors of physical and psychological health outcomes, and implicated as psychosocial determinants of the pain experience. Despite this promising evidence, limited information is available on optimism and pessimism in headache disorders. Objective To evaluate the influence of optimism and pessimism in meeting criteria for migraine and related disability in a population‐based sample. Methods This is an observational, cross‐sectional study. The sample population was selected through a stratified, multi‐stage area probability sample of households, as used by the last Brazilian Census. A validated questionnaire eliciting data on demographics, headache features, migraine‐related disability, depression (PHQ‐9), anxiety (GAD‐7), optimism, and pessimism (life orientation test – revised) was administered to people with migraine and headache‐free control participants from the general population in São Paulo, Brazil via trained interviewers. Six hundred individuals were contacted. The odds for having migraine/no headache diagnosis were calculated by binary logistic regression, and ordinal regression was performed to check associations between migraine‐related disability and optimism. Results A total of 302 individuals (mean ± SD age: 39.7 ± 12.7; BMI: 26.5 ± 5.9) met inclusion criteria and were included, 140 controls (with no history of headache disorders) and 162 people meeting criteria for migraine (29 with chronic migraine, that is, 15 or more headache days/month). People with migraine were less optimistic and more pessimistic than controls, and endorsed higher levels of anxious and depressive symptoms. Pessimism (OR 95% CI = 1.16 [1.05–1.28], P = .005) and anxiety (OR 95% CI = 1.19 [1.10–1.29], P < .001) were predictors of meeting criteria for migraine, while optimism (β 95% CI = −0.915 [−1.643, −0.188], P = .01) was inversely associated with migraine‐related disability. Conclusions Optimism and pessimism are associated with migraine and migraine‐related disability. These concepts should be further explored in people with migraine with regard to their potential influences on clinical research outcomes and treatments.

Objective This study aimed to identify the essential content and amount of information to be collected from people with migraine via a patient‐facing smartphone‐based migraine tracker for them to share with clinicians during live discussions to assist in optimizing migraine management. The proposed tracker is intended for use in non‐interventional research to evaluate disease burden in episodic migraine and chronic migraine patients as assessed by demographic and clinical characteristics and health resource utilization in an integrated delivery network setting. The proposed tracker is not intended for commercial purposes. Background Epidemiological studies suggest migraine is underdiagnosed and undertreated. Studies of patient‐clinician interactions suggest that effective medical communication may help address these issues. Methods Four migraine practice leaders, an epidemiologist with extensive migraine experience, and a measurement expert took part in a modified Delphi panel process to identify data elements that could be collected from people with migraine through a smartphone‐based migraine tracker. Importantly, the proposed tracker would not be intended to replace the patient‐clinician encounter but to support the encounter through enabling the patient to document migraine symptoms and experiences in a timely and accurate manner for sharing with a clinician as part of a broader face‐to‐face discussion. The panel reviewed questions derived from the existing migraine diaries in the public domain, those used in clinical trials, and patient‐centric surveys assessing the impact of migraine on physical function and other related concepts. Key considerations included identification of the most clinically useful data elements for a shared communication tool for people with migraine under the care of a clinician. The panel also identified numerous functionality requirements for such a tool and provided recommendations on the most effective way to present results to a clinician. Results The expert panel opined that people with migraine may value the ability to capture a relatively broad range of information for their own migraine‐tracking purposes, while clinicians will likely find greater value in a small set of data relevant to the management of migraine. The panel identified the 3 most essential concepts in categories of data for a clinician, for which they coined the term “The 3 Fs”: F requency of days with headache; F requency of acute medication usage; and F unctional impairment. Information on the frequency of days with headache was felt to combine with the information on the frequency of acute medication usage to provide essential insights into current migraine management strategy and its outcomes, and to assist considerations of preventive measures. Functional impairment was treated as an effective surrogate for headache severity and was assessed based on the following: degree of difficulty in performing activities of daily living, impact on absenteeism (taking leave from work or cancelling/avoiding other activities) and presenteeism (performing work or other daily activities, with reduced productivity/capability), and amount of rest required as a result of a migraine attack. The modified Delphi panel process resulted in the selection of 13 questions in 8 categories to elicit sufficient and meaningful data comprising headache occurrence, symptoms, daily/preventive and as‐needed/acute medication usage, triggers, ability to concentrate, and functional impairment. The panel also agreed that the tracker should generate 2 distinct reports: one for people with migraine that would include a wider range of data about symptoms and perceived triggers, and a targeted report for the clinician that would place prime emphasis on the 3 Fs for aggregating the results of each headache occurrence and the trend over time. Conclusions A system that easily captures critical data elements about migraine, with specific feedback displays for patients to share with clinicians during live discussions, may offer some benefit to people with migraine and their clinicians by facilitating more objective communication and optimizing management. The tracker’s output may enable people with migraine to track a wide range of data for their own purposes, allowing them to better understand their condition, while a synthesized view of the selected data may support more informed clinical decision‐making for the clinician and individualized, evidence‐based discussion with the patient. As a result, this shared decision‐making tool may enable patients to more accurately convey essential migraine information during live patient‐clinician discussions to drive improved management and patient outcomes.

Abstract Objectives To summarize the baseline methods for the Migraine in America Symptoms and Treatment (MAST) Study and evaluate gender differences in sociodemographics and headache features; consultation and diagnosis patterns; and patterns of acute and preventive treatment use for migraine among study participants. Background The MAST Study is a longitudinal, internet‐based panel study of symptoms, approaches to management, and unmet treatment needs among US adults with migraine. This analysis focuses on the initial cross‐sectional survey, conducted beginning in 2016, and is intended to update results from earlier national epidemiologic surveys of people with migraine in the United States. Methods Respondents to the MAST Study were recruited from a US nationwide online research panel. Stratified random sampling identified a representative cohort of adults (aged ≥18 years). We administered a validated diagnostic screener based on modified ICHD‐3 beta criteria to identify individuals with migraine averaging at least 1 monthly headache day (MHD) over the previous 3 months. A baseline assessment evaluated sociodemographic and headache features, patterns of consultation and diagnosis, and use of acute and preventive medications for migraine. Frequency data and chi‐square contrasts ( P < .05) were used to compare respondents based on gender. Results Baseline survey data (N = 95,821) identified 18,353 respondents who met criteria for migraine, including 15,133 (women n = 11,049, men n = 4084) reporting at least 1 MHD for the preceding 3 months. The mean age of the sample was 43.1 (13.6) years; 73.0% of respondents were women, and 81.0% were Caucasian. Compared with men, women were younger (46.1 vs 42.0 years; P < .001); had more MHDs (5.6 vs 5.3; P < .001); and were more likely to report moderate or severe headache‐related disability (45.9% vs 35.8%; P < .001) and cutaneous allodynia (43.7% vs 29.5%; P < .001). The lifetime rate of medical consultation for headache was 79.8% overall and slightly higher in women than in men. Women were more likely than men to have been diagnosed with migraine (48.3% vs 38.8%, P < .001). While 95.1% of people with migraine currently used acute treatment, the majority (58.9%) used over‐the‐counter (OTC) drugs to the exclusion of prescription drugs, while 11.3% used exclusively prescription drugs, and 20.5% used both. Among acute prescription medication users, women were more likely than men to take triptans (17.7% vs 14.3%, P < .001), while men were more likely than women to take opioids (14.5% vs 9.2%, P < .001). Oral formulations were used predominately (92.7% of the medication users), but men were more likely to use nasal sprays (13.6% vs 9.4%, P < .001) and injectables (7.9% vs 3.4%, P < .001). Men (14.5%) were also significantly more likely than women (10.4%) to be taking daily oral preventive medication ( P < .001). Conclusions The MAST Study identified a large sample of women and men with migraine from a sampling frame that broadly resembles the US population. Low participation rate increases the risk of response bias, however, comparisons with Census data and prior population studies for the demographic and headache characteristics of the current sample suggest that findings are generalizable to the population of people with migraine. Women had more MHDs than men, and they were more likely to report migraine‐related disability and cutaneous allodynia. The lifetime consultation rate for headache was relatively high, but many with migraine symptoms reported never having received a diagnosis of migraine from a healthcare professional. Acute prescription and preventive migraine treatments are underused. Migraine persists as an underdiagnosed and undertreated public health problem in 2018, and there are many opportunities to improve the diagnosis and treatment of people with this painful, disabling condition.

Objective To assess the impact of parental migraine on adolescents (aged 13‐21 years) living within the parental home from the adolescent's perspective. Background Family members are affected by their parent's migraine. We surveyed adolescents on the social, academic, and emotional effects of their parent's migraine. Methods The Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) study was a longitudinal Web‐based study with cross‐sectional modules designed to assess migraine symptoms, severity, frequency, and disability; migraine‐related consulting practices, healthcare utilization, medication use, comorbid health conditions, and family related burden associated with migraine. The Family Burden Module (adolescent version; FBM‐A) from the CaMEO study assessed parents with migraine and adolescent household members (dyads). Adolescents ranged in age from 13‐21 years and were living at home with their parent. The initial FBM‐A survey included 52 items covering five domains, which was refined and reduced by confirmatory factor analysis to 36 items covering four domains. Depression (9‐item Patient Health Questionnaire) and anxiety (7‐item Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale) were assessed. Item responses were stratified by parent migraine status (episodic migraine [EM], <15 headache days/month; chronic migraine [CM], ≥15 headache days/month). Frequencies of activities/events missed because of parental headache were categorized as ≥1 time or ≥4 times/previous 30 days. Results The sample included 1,411 parent‐adolescent dyads (parent with EM, n = 1,243 [88.1%]; parent with CM, n = 168 [11.9%]). Burden due to a parent's migraine was reported in four domains based on 36 items including: Loss of Parental Support and Reverse Caregiving (5 items); Emotional Experience (13 items); Interference with School (4 items); and Missed Activities and Events (14 items). Across domains, perceived burden was greater for adolescents of parents with CM vs EM. Rates of moderate‐to‐severe anxiety symptoms were higher among adolescents of parents with CM (6.2 vs 11.3%, P = .01), while moderate‐to‐severe depression symptom rates were similar (5.5 vs 8.9%, P = .08). More adolescents of CM vs EM parents reported having a headache within the previous 3 months ( P < .001). Conclusions Parental migraine negatively impacts adolescent children, extending our understanding of the family burden of migraine and emphasizing the potential benefit to children of optimizing migraine care.

Objective To assess the rates and predictors of traversing steps essential to good medical care for chronic migraine, including: (1) medical consultation, (2) accurate diagnosis, and (3) minimal pharmacologic treatment. Candidate predictors included socioeconomic, demographic, and headache‐specific variables. Background Previous research has established that barriers to effective management for episodic migraine include the absence of health insurance, lack of appropriate medical consultation, failure to receive an accurate diagnosis, and not being offered a regimen with acute and preventive treatments. Methods/Design The Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) Study, a longitudinal web‐based panel study of migraine, included a cross‐sectional module focused on patterns of and barriers to medical care. Participants eligible for this analysis met the study criteria for chronic migraine, had evidence of headache‐related disability, and provided data on health insurance status. The main outcomes in the current analysis included the proportion of respondents who sought consultation for headache with a designated healthcare professional, self‐reported receiving a diagnosis of chronic or transformed migraine, and received minimal pharmacologic treatment for headache with a focus on prescribed acute and preventive treatments. Results In the CaMEO Study, 80,783 respondents provided study data, 16,789 (20.8% of respondents) met criteria for migraine, and 1476 (8.8% of those with migraine) met chronic migraine criteria. In total, 1254 participants (85.0% of those with chronic migraine) met inclusion criteria for this analysis. Of those, 512 respondents (40.8%) reported currently consulting with a healthcare professional for headache. Odds of consulting increased with increasing age (OR 1.02; 95% CI 1.01–1.03), body mass index (BMI) (OR 1.01; 95% CI 1.00–1.03), migraine‐related disability (OR 1.02; 95% CI 1.00–1.04), and migraine severity (OR 1.16; 95% CI 1.11–1.22) and presence of health insurance (OR 4.61; 95% CI 3.05–6.96). Among those consulting a healthcare professional, 126 (24.6%) received an accurate diagnosis and 56 of those with a correct diagnosis (44.4%) received both acute and preventive pharmacologic treatments; odds of a CM diagnosis were higher for women (OR 1.93; 95% CI 1.03–3.61), those with greater migraine severity (OR 1.25; 95% CI 1.14–1.37), and those currently consulting a specialist (OR 2.38; 95% CI 1.54–3.69). No predictors of receiving appropriate treatment were identified among those currently consulting. Among our sample of people with chronic migraine, only 56 (4.5%) individuals successfully traversed the series of 3 barriers to successful chronic migraine care (ie, consulted a healthcare professional for migraine, received an accurate diagnosis, and were prescribed minimal acute and preventive pharmacologic treatments). Conclusion Our findings suggest that <5% of persons with chronic migraine traversed 3 barriers to receiving care for headache (consultation, diagnosis, and treatment), representing a large unmet need for improving care in this population. Predictors of consulting a healthcare professional included age, having health insurance, greater migraine‐related disability, and greater migraine symptom severity. Among those consulting, predictors of an appropriate diagnosis included consulting a specialist, female sex, and greater migraine severity. Public health efforts are needed to improve outcomes for patients with chronic migraine by a range of interventions and educational efforts aimed at improving consultation rates, diagnostic accuracy, and adherence to minimal pharmacologic treatment.

Background Migraine, particularly chronic migraine (CM), is underdiagnosed and undertreated worldwide. Our objective was to develop and validate a self-administered tool (ID-CM) to identify migraine and CM. Methods ID-CM was developed in four stages. (1) Expert clinicians suggested candidate items from existing instruments and experience (Delphi Panel method). (2) Candidate items were reviewed by people with CM during cognitive debriefing interviews. (3) Items were administered to a Web panel of people with severe headache to assess psychometric properties and refine ID-CM. (4) Classification accuracy was assessed using an ICHD-3β gold-standard clinician diagnosis. Results Stages 1 and 2 identified 20 items selected for psychometric validation in stage 3 ( n = 1562). The 12 psychometrically robust items from stage 3 underwent validity testing in stage 4. A scoring algorithm applied to four symptom items (moderate/severe pain intensity, photophobia, phonophobia, nausea) accurately classified most migraine cases among 111 people (sensitivity = 83.5%, specificity = 88.5%). Augmenting this algorithm with eight items assessing headache frequency, disability, medication use, and planning disruption correctly classified most CM cases (sensitivity = 80.6%, specificity = 88.6%). Discussion ID-CM is a simple yet accurate tool that correctly classifies most individuals with migraine and CM. Further testing in other settings will also be valuable.