Citations

Objective To inform migraine care model development by assessing differences between patients with chronic migraine (CM) and episodic migraine (EM) in the current state of treatment, disability, patient satisfaction, and quality improvement opportunities. Background Efficient and focused use of scarce resources will be needed to address challenges within large populations of migraine patients. Methods We deployed a cross‐sectional survey study of randomly selected migraine patients within a community primary care practice. Results There were 516 survey respondents (516/1804 [30%] response rate). CM patients were more likely than EM patients to report care from a neurologist (76/110 [69%] vs 229/406 [56%]; P = .0026), and higher disability according to the Migraine Disability Assessment and Headache Impact Test – 6 questionnaires ( P < .0001). CM patients were less likely than EM patients to report overall satisfaction with care (16/110 [38%] vs 156/406 [66%], P = .0002), satisfaction with access to care (17/110 [33%] vs 176/406 [68%], P < .0001), and advice they needed (16/110 [31%] vs 160/406 [62%], P < .0001). Most patients with migraine had been offered triptan medications 377/516 (78%). Overall, 156/516 (31%) of individuals were currently taking any medication for migraine prevention, and 208/516 (40%) including botulinum toxin injections. CM patients were more likely to be taking preventive medication (39/110 [36%] vs 117/406 [29%], P = .0191) and report familiarity with the diagnosis of medication‐overuse headache than patients with EM (80/110 [81%] vs 256/406 [69%], P = .0178). Conclusions We observed differences between patients with chronic and EM and expected care delivery improvement opportunities for migraine patients in primary care. CM patients report higher levels of disability and less satisfaction with access to perceived needed medical advice and care. These findings support the need to further develop and study novel care models to efficiently and effectively deliver high‐quality care and expertise in limited supply to a diverse migraine population.

Background: Exercise prevents recurrent cardiovascular events and it may combat cognitive decline in coronary artery disease (CAD); however, evidence in type 2 diabetes (T2DM) has been mixed. T2DM and memory decline have been associated with differences in the plasma sphingolipidome. Objective: Here, we will investigate whether T2DM-related sphingolipids predict less memory improvement over an exercise intervention for CAD. Methods: Among participants with CAD entering a 6-month exercise intervention, we matched 20 with T2DM to 40 without T2DM for age, sex, and body mass index. We assessed 45 sphingolipid species using high-performance liquid chromatography coupled electrospray ionization tandem mass spectrometry with multiple reaction monitoring. We assessed memory using the California Verbal Learning Test, 2nd Ed, and the revised Brief Visuospatial Learning Test. Results: Partial least squares discriminant analysis identified 8 species that distinguished T2DM from non-T2DM groups with 83% (95% confidence interval [70%, 95%]) accuracy in a receiver operator characteristic curve (validated by internal resampling, 1000 permutations, p = 0.01). At baseline, T2DM-associated sphingolipids (ceramide C22 : 0, monohexylceramide C16 : 1, and lactosylceramide C24 : 0) were associated with poorer memory, attention, and psychomotor processing speed performance. Among 50 completers, an indirect effect of T2DM on less improvement in verbal memory was mediated by monohexylceramide C16 : 1 (0.86 fewer words recalled, 95% bootstrap confidence interval [–2.32, –0.24]), and an indirect effect of T2DM on less visuospatial memory improvement was mediated by ceramide C22 : 0 concentrations (0.42 fewer points, 95% bootstrap confidence interval [–1.17, –0.05]). Conclusions: Ceramide species associated with T2DM predicted poorer cognitive responses to exercise in patients with CAD.

Objectives To develop neurology scenarios for use with the Quality Improvement Knowledge Application Tool Revised (QIKAT-R), gather and evaluate validity evidence, and project the impact of scenario number, rater number and rater type on score reliability. Methods Six neurological case scenarios were developed. Residents were randomly assigned three scenarios before and after a quality improvement (QI) course in 2015 and 2016. For each scenario, residents crafted an aim statement, selected a measure and proposed a change to address a quality gap. Responses were scored by six faculty raters (two with and four without QI expertise) using the QIKAT-R. Validity evidence from content, response process, internal structure, relations to other variables and consequences was collected. A generalisability (G) study examined sources of score variability, and decision analyses estimated projected reliability for different numbers of raters and scenarios and raters with and without QI expertise. Results Raters scored 163 responses from 28 residents. The mean QIKAT-R score was 5.69 (SD 1.06). G-coefficient and Phi-coefficient were 0.65 and 0.60, respectively. Interrater reliability was fair for raters without QI expertise (intraclass correlation = 0.53, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.72) and acceptable for raters with QI expertise (intraclass correlation = 0.66, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.88). Postcourse scores were significantly higher than precourse scores (6.05, SD 1.48 vs 5.22, SD 1.5; p < 0.001). Sufficient reliability for formative assessment (G-coefficient > 0.60) could be achieved by three raters scoring six scenarios or two raters scoring eight scenarios, regardless of rater QI expertise. Conclusions Validity evidence was sufficient to support the use of the QIKAT-R with multiple scenarios and raters to assess resident QI knowledge application for formative or low-stakes summative purposes. The results provide practical information for educators to guide implementation decisions.