Citations

Background Matters of workplace harassment are an important issue. This issue needs to be recognized and studied to prevent occurrences. These important sensitive areas of effective workplace management are increasingly gaining more interest. We aimed to identify the prevalence of workplace sexual, verbal and physical harassment among headache professionals. Methods We adopted a cross‑sectional exploratory survey approach with quantitative design. The survey was distributed electronically among headache healthcare and research professionals globally through the International Headache Society (IHS). Results Data were obtained from 579 respondents (55.3%; 320/579 women). A large percentage of respondents (46.6%; 270/579) had experienced harassment; specifically, 16.1% (93/578) reported sexual harassment, 40.4% (234/579) verbal harassment and 5.5% (32/579) physical harassment. Women were almost seven times more likely to experience sexual harassment compared to men (odds ratio = 6.8; 95% confidence interval = 3.5–13.2). Although women did also more frequently report other types of harassment, this was not statistically significant (odds ratio = 1.4; 95% confidence interval = 1.0–2.0). Conclusions Lifetime exposure to workplace harassment is prevalent among headache professionals, especially in women. The present study uncovers a widespread issue and calls for strategies to be implemented for building a healthy and safe workplace environment.

Abstract Objectives To capture patients' perspectives on migraine‐related cognitive symptoms during pre‐headache, headache, post‐headache, and interictal periods. Background Migraine‐related cognitive symptoms are reported by people with migraine both during and between attacks. Associated with disability, they are increasingly viewed as a priority target for treatment. The Migraine Clinical Outcome Assessment System (MiCOAS) project is focused on developing a patient‐centered core set of outcome measures for the evaluation of migraine treatments. The project focuses on incorporating the experience of people living with migraine and the outcomes most meaningful to them. This includes an examination of the presence and functional impact of migraine‐related cognitive symptoms and their perceived impact on quality of life and disability. Methods Forty individuals with self‐reported medically diagnosed migraine were recruited via iterative purposeful sampling for semi‐structured qualitative interviews conducted using audio‐only web conferencing. Thematic content analysis was performed to identify key concepts around migraine‐related cognitive symptoms. Recruitment continued until concept saturation was achieved. Results Participants described symptoms consistent with migraine‐related deficits in language/speech, sustained attention, executive function, and memory that manifest during pre‐headache (36/40 [90%] reported ≥1 cognitive feature), headache (35/40 [88%] reported ≥1 cognitive feature), post‐headache (27/40 [68%] reported ≥1 cognitive feature), and interictal periods (13/40 [33%] reported ≥1 cognitive feature). Among participants reporting cognitive symptoms during pre‐headache, 32/40 (81%) endorsed 2–5 cognitive symptoms. Findings were similar during the headache phase. Participants reported language/speech problems consistent with, for example, impairments in receptive language, expressive language, and articulation. Issues with sustained attention included fogginess, confusion/disorientation, and trouble with concentration/focus. Deficits in executive function included difficulty processing information and reduced capacity for planning and decision‐making. Memory issues were reported across all phases of the migraine attack. Conclusions This patient‐level qualitative study suggests that cognitive symptoms are common for persons with migraine, particularly in the pre‐headache and headache phases. These findings highlight the importance of assessing and ameliorating these cognitive problems.

Abstract Objective To evaluate the effect of eptinezumab on patient‐reported outcomes in patients with chronic migraine (CM) and medication‐overuse headache (MOH). Background MOH is a secondary headache disorder commonly occurring in patients with CM and associated with functional and psychological impairments. Medication overuse and monthly headache and migraine days were reduced with eptinezumab compared with placebo as published previously; however, these outcomes do not fully capture the burden of migraine and treatment effect. Methods PROMISE‐2 was a phase 3, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial in adults with CM. Patients were randomized (1:1:1) to receive eptinezumab 100 mg, eptinezumab 300 mg, or placebo (up to 2 doses, 12 weeks apart). Patients completed the following patient‐reported outcomes: 6‐item Headache Impact Test (HIT‐6), Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), patient‐identified most bothersome symptom (PI‐MBS), and 36‐item Short‐Form Health Survey (SF‐36). Results A total of 431 CM patients (139, 147, and 145 patients in the eptinezumab 100 mg, eptinezumab 300 mg, and placebo groups, respectively) had MOH diagnosed at screening (40.2% of the total PROMISE‐2 population [ n = 1072]). In CM with MOH patients, both doses of eptinezumab were associated with clinically meaningful improvements in mean HIT‐6 total scores by week 4 and remained improved throughout the 24‐week study. Responder rates for individual HIT‐6 items were greater with eptinezumab than with placebo at all time points. At week 12, almost twice as many eptinezumab‐treated patients indicated the PGIC was “much” or “very much” improved (58.5% [79/135, 100 mg] and 67.4% [95/147, 300 mg] vs. 35.8% [48/134, placebo]). Patients in the eptinezumab groups showed numerically greater improvements over placebo in the PI‐MBS and SF‐36 scores. Conclusions This subgroup analysis in patients with CM/MOH at baseline suggests that eptinezumab treatment is associated with early, sustained, and clinically meaningful improvements in patient‐reported outcomes.

Background It is well recognized that underrepresented and minoritized groups do not have the same career opportunities. However, there are limited data on the range and specifics of potential barriers that withhold people in headache medicine and science from reaching their full potential. Moreover, people from different geographical regions often perceive different challenges. We aimed to identify world-wide perceived career barriers and possibilities for promoting equality amongst professionals in the headache fields. Methods A cross-sectional online survey was conducted among professionals in the field of headache globally. The questions of the survey were aimed at assessing perceived career barriers in four domains: professional recognition, opportunities in scientific societies, clinical practice, and salary and compensation. Perceived mentorship was also assessed. Results In total 580 responders completed the survey (55.3% women). Gender was the most important perceived barrier in almost all domains. Additionally, country of birth emerged as an important barrier to participation in international scientific societies. Career barriers varied across world regions. Conclusion It is essential that longstanding and ongoing disparities by gender and country of origin for professionals in the headache field are globally acknowledged and addressed in areas of recruitment, retention, opportunities, mentor- and sponsorships, and advancement.

Abstract Objective To assess the utility of the novel patient‐identified (PI) most bothersome symptom (MBS) measure from PROMISE‐2, a phase 3 trial of eptinezumab for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine. Background Relief of bothersome migraine symptoms can influence satisfaction with treatment and therapeutic persistence. Understanding the impact of preventive treatment on a PI‐MBS could improve clinical decision‐making. Methods In PROMISE‐2, patients with chronic migraine received eptinezumab 100, 300 mg, or placebo administered intravenously every 12 weeks for up to 2 doses ( n = 1072). PI‐MBS was an exploratory outcome requiring each patient to self‐report their MBS in response to an open‐ended question. At baseline and week 12, patients rated overall improvement in PI‐MBS. The relationships among PI‐MBS at week 12 and change in monthly migraine days (MMDs) from baseline to month 3 (weeks 9–12), Patient Global Impression of Change at week 12, and changes from baseline to week 12 in the 6‐item Headache Impact Test total, EuroQol 5‐dimensions 5‐levels visual analog scale, and 36‐item Short‐Form Health Survey component scores were assessed. Results Treatment groups had similar baseline characteristics and reported a total of 23 unique PI‐MBS, most commonly light sensitivity (200/1072, 18.7%), nausea/vomiting (162/1072, 15.1%), and pain with activity (147/1072, 13.7%). Improvements in PI‐MBS at week 12 correlated with changes in MMDs ( ρ = −0.49; p < 0.0001) and other patient‐reported outcomes. Controlling for changes in MMDs, PI‐MBS improvement predicted other patient‐reported outcomes in expected directions. The magnitude of the standardized mean differences between placebo and active treatment for PI‐MBS were 0.31 ( p < 0.0001 vs. placebo) and 0.54 ( p < 0.0001 vs. placebo) for eptinezumab 100 and 300 mg, respectively. Conclusions Improvement in PI‐MBS at week 12 was associated with improvement in other patient‐reported outcome measures, and PI‐MBS may be an important patient‐centered measure of treatment benefits in patients with chronic migraine.

Background Ictal cutaneous allodynia, common in chronic migraine, is associated with reduced responses to acute treatment with triptans. Allodynia’s impact on the efficacy of newer preventive treatments such as erenumab is unknown. Methods Post-hoc subgroup analysis of a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled 12-week study of erenumab in chronic migraine, contrasting those with no allodynia with those with moderate-severe allodynia assessed with the Allodynia Symptom Checklist-12, was undertaken. Results Of 648 randomized individuals with baseline Allodynia Symptom Checklist-12 scores, 386 (59.6%) had no allodynia and 153 (23.6%) had moderate-to-severe allodynia. Mean (standard deviation) baseline monthly migraine days were 17.6 (4.8) and 18.9 (4.3), respectively. Compared to placebo, the erenumab group had greater reductions in monthly migraine days and monthly acute migraine-specific medication days in both no allodynia and allodynia subgroups. Mean (95% confidence interval) treatment differences in change from baseline for monthly migraine days at week 12 were −2.5 (−3.7, −1.4) in the no allodynia subgroup and −3.3 (−5.3, −1.3) in the moderate-severe allodynia subgroup. Change in acute migraine-specific medication days were −3.3 (−4.3, −2.3) and −2.5 (−4.3, −0.8), respectively. Conclusions Erenumab’s efficacy in reducing monthly migraine days and acute migraine-specific medication days in chronic migraine was not impacted by the presence of moderate-severe ictal allodynia. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02066415

Abstract Background/Objective To review the acute migraine clinical trial literature and provide a summary of the endpoints and outcomes used in such trials. Method A systematic literature review, following a prespecified (but unregistered) protocol developed to adhere to recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses, was conducted to understand endpoints and outcomes used in acute migraine clinical trials. Predefined terms were searched in PubMed to locate clinical trials assessing acute migraine treatments. Final database search was conducted on October 28, 2019. Identified publications were reviewed against established inclusion and exclusion criteria to determine eligibility. Data related to general trial design characteristics, sample characteristics, and outcomes and endpoints reported in each publication were extracted from eligible publications. Descriptive summaries of design features, sample characteristics, and the endpoints and outcomes employed across publications were constructed. Outcomes are presented within four broad categories: (a) pain‐related outcomes (pain relief, pain freedom, etc.), (b) associated symptoms (nausea, photophobia, etc.), (c) disability/impairment/impact, (d) patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs, general health and migraine/headache‐specific). Endpoint types were categorized within three broad categories: (a) change from baseline, (b) fixed timepoint, and (c) responder definitions (e.g., 50% reduction). This review focuses on a subset of recent (1998 or later) randomized and blinded publications evaluating drugs or medical devices. Results Of 1567 publications found through the initial search and reference section reviews, 705 met criteria and were included for data extraction. Inter‐rater agreement kappas for the descriptive variables extracted had an average kappa estimate of 0.86. The more recent, randomized and blinded pharmaceutical and medical device article subset includes 451 publications (451/705, 63.9%). The outcomes and endpoints varied substantially across trials, ranging from pain relief or freedom, freedom from or relief of migraine‐associated symptoms, use of acute or rescue medication, and various other PROMs, including measures of satisfaction and quality of life. Within the recent randomized and blinded article subset, most articles examined ≥1 pain‐related outcome (430/451, 95.3%). Of the publications that examined pain, outcomes most often used were pain relief (310/430, 72.1%), pain freedom (279/430, 64.9%), and headache recurrence (202/43,051, 47.0%) or rescue medication use (278/430, 64.9%). Associated symptoms such as nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia were more frequently measured (299/451, 66.3%) compared to most bothersome associated symptom (16/451, 3.5%), as it is a new addition to regulatory guidance. Over one‐third of eligible publications examined disability/impairment (186/451, 41.2%) or ≥1 PROM (159/451, 35.3%). The definition of the endpoints used (e.g., change from baseline, fixed timepoint comparisons, categorization of “responders” to treatment based on wide variety of “responder definitions”) also differed substantially across publications. Conclusion Acute migraine clinical trials exhibit a large amount of variability in outcomes and endpoints used, in addition to the variability in how outcomes and endpoints were used from trial‐to‐trial. There were some common elements across trials that align with guidance from the International Headache Society, the Food and Drug Administration and other regulatory agencies (e.g., assessing pain and associated symptoms, 2‐hour post‐treatment). Other aspects of acute migraine clinical trial design did not follow guidance. For example, multi‐item PROMs intended to measure constructs (e.g., scales) are rarely used, the use of pain‐related outcomes is inconsistent, some associated symptom assessments are idiosyncratic, and the timing of the assessment of primary endpoints is variable. The development of a core set of outcomes and endpoints for acute migraine clinical trials that are patient‐centered and statistically robust could improve the conduct of individual trials, facilitate cross‐trial comparisons, and better support informed treatment decisions by healthcare professionals and patients.

Abstract Background Over the last six decades (earliest included publication from 1959), clinical trials of migraine preventive treatments have led to the regulatory approval of many medications and devices. Despite similar clinical goals, the outcomes and endpoints used in these trials are broad and not well standardized. Objective To describe results from a systematic literature review focused on outcomes and endpoints used in preventive migraine clinical trials. Method A systematic literature review, following a pre‐specified (unregistered) protocol developed to adhere to recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses, was conducted to characterize the endpoints and outcomes used in preventive migraine clinical trials. Predetermined terms were searched in PubMed on October 28, 2019. Data related to trial design, subject characteristics, outcomes, and endpoints reported in each publication were extracted. Descriptive summaries of these features were tabulated for the recent subset of publications, published during or after 1988, that were randomized, blinded, and focused on pharmacological or device therapies for the preventive treatment of migraine. Results The initial literature search identified 1506 publications, of which 757 publications were eligible for data extraction. Of specific clinical interest were the recent subset of 268 articles (268/757, 35.4%) fulfilling the targeted criteria. Results showed that the outcomes used to define endpoints varied substantially across publications. For example, in the recent subset of publications, 68.7% (184/268) of the publications examined ≥1 migraine‐specific outcome, 39.6% (106/268) examined ≥1 headache‐specific outcome, 50.7% (136/268) examined ≥1 acute/rescue medication use outcome, 40.3% (108/268) examined ≥1 headache‐related patient‐reported outcome measure (PROM), and 22.0% (59/268) examined ≥1 non‐headache‐specific PROM. Furthermore, the definition of the endpoints used (e.g., change from baseline, fixed timepoint comparisons, categorization of “responders” to treatment based on wide variety of “responder definitions”) also differed across publications. Conclusion Publications from clinical trials of preventive migraine pharmacologic and device treatments differed in terms of study design, endpoint definitions, and how endpoints and outcomes were measured. Although there were common outcomes and endpoints used across publications, no clear “standardized” set of endpoints and outcomes emerged. The inconsistencies in endpoints and outcomes within this literature suggest that the development of a uniform set of outcomes and endpoints could improve the clinical meaningfulness of clinical trial results, facilitate cross‐trial comparisons and better inform patient care. This standard set of outcomes and endpoints should be statistically robust and informed by the priorities of various stakeholders, most importantly, the needs and preferences of people living with migraine.