Lipton, Richard B.

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.

In 1995, a committee of the International Headache Society developed and published the first edition of the Guidelines for Controlled Trials of Drugs in Cluster Headache. These have not been revised. With the emergence of new medications, neuromodulation devices and trial designs, an updated version of the International Headache Society Guidelines for Controlled Clinical Trials in Cluster Headache is warranted. Given the scarcity of evidence-based data for cluster headache therapies, the update is largely consensus-based, but takes into account lessons learned from recent trials and demands by patients. It is intended to apply to both drug and neuromodulation treatments, with specific proposals for the latter when needed. The primary objective is to propose a template for designing high quality, state-of-the-art, controlled clinical trials of acute and preventive treatments in episodic and chronic cluster headache. The recommendations should not be regarded as dogma and alternative solutions to particular methodological problems should be explored in the future and scientifically validated.

Clinic-based headache registries collect data for a wide variety of purposes including delineating disease characteristics, longitudinal natural disease courses, headache management approaches, quality of care, treatment safety and effectiveness, factors that predict treatment response, health care resource utilization, clinician adherence to guidelines, and cost-effectiveness. Registry data are valuable for numerous stakeholders, including individuals with headache disorders and their caregivers, healthcare providers, scientists, healthcare systems, regulatory authorities, pharmaceutical companies, employers, and policymakers. This International Headache Society document may serve as guidance for developing clinic-based headache registries. Use of registry data requires a formal research protocol that includes: 1) research aims; 2) methods for data collection, harmonization, analysis, privacy, and protection; 3) methods for human subject protection; and 4) publication and dissemination plans. Depending upon their objectives, headache registries should include validated headache-specific questionnaires, patient reported outcome measures, data elements that are used consistently across studies (i.e., “common data elements”), and medical record data. Amongst other data types, registries may be linked to healthcare and pharmacy claims data, biospecimens, and neuroimaging data. Headache diagnoses should be made according to the International Classification of Headache Disorders diagnostic criteria. The data from well-designed headache registries can provide wide-ranging and novel insights into the characteristics, burden, and treatment of headache disorders and ultimately lead to improvements in the management of patients with headache.

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.

Abstract Objective To evaluate the content validity and psychometric properties of the Activity Impairment in Migraine Diary (AIM‐D). Background Measuring treatment effects on migraine impairment requires a psychometrically sound patient‐reported outcome (PRO) measure developed consistent with U.S. Food and Drug Administration guidance. Methods The AIM‐D was created from concepts that emerged during qualitative interviews with five clinicians experienced in treating migraine and concept elicitation (CE) interviews with 40 adults with episodic migraine (EM) or chronic migraine (CM). The initial version was refined based on three waves of cognitive interviews with 38 adults with EM or CM and input from a panel of clinical and measurement experts. The AIM‐D was psychometrically evaluated using data from 316 adults with EM or CM who participated in a 13‐week prospective observational study. Study participants completed PRO assessments including the AIM‐D and a daily headache diary. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis were used to determine the factor structure. The reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the AIM‐D were assessed. Additional PRO measures including the Patient Global Impression – Severity (PGI‐S), Migraine Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire, Version 2.1 Role Function‐Restrictive domain, and Headache Impact Test were used for psychometric evaluation of the AIM‐D. Results Based on CE interviews with adults with migraine and input from an expert panel, activity impairment was identified as the target in the preliminary conceptual framework, which had two domains: performance of daily activities (PDAs) and physical impairment (PI). Revision of the draft AIM‐D through multiple rounds of cognitive interviews and expert panel meetings resulted in a content valid 11‐item version. Exploratory factor analysis supported both one‐ and two‐domain structures for the AIM‐D, which were further supported by confirmatory factor analysis (factor loadings all >0.90). The AIM‐D domains (PDA and PI) and total score showed high internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha 0.95–0.97), acceptable test–retest reliability for weekly average scores (intraclass correlation coefficient >0.60 for participants with no change in PGI‐S between baseline and week 2), and good convergent and known‐groups validity. There was evidence of responsiveness based on changes in PGI‐S score and monthly migraine days. Conclusion The AIM‐D is a content valid and psychometrically sound measure designed to evaluate activity impairment and is suitable for use in clinical trials of preventive treatments for EM or CM.