Citations

Abstract Objective To evaluate whether the 15‐day threshold of headache days per month adequately reflects substantial differences in disability across the full spectrum of migraine. Background The monthly frequency of headache days defines migraine subtypes and has crucial implications for epidemiological and clinical research as well as access to care. Methods The patients with migraine ( N = 836) who participated in the American Registry for Migraine Research, which is a multicenter, longitudinal patient registry, between February 2016 and March 2020, were divided into four groups based on monthly headache frequency: Group 1 (0–7 headache days/month, n = 286), Group 2 (8–14 headache days/month, n = 180), Group 3 (15–23 headache days/month, n = 153), Group 4 (≥24 headache days/month, n = 217). Disability (MIDAS), Pain intensity (NRS), Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI), Pain Interference (PROMIS‐PI), Patient Health Questionnaire‐4 (PHQ‐4), and General Anxiety Disorder‐7 (GAD‐7) scores were compared. Results Mean (standard deviation [SD]) age was 46 (13) years (87.9% [735/836] female). The proportion of patients in each group was as follows: Group 1 (34.2% [286/836]), Group 2 (21.5% [180/836]), Group 3 (18.3% [153/836]), and Group 4 (26.0% [217/836]). There were significant relationships with increasing disability, lost productive time, and pain interference in higher headache frequency categories. There were no significant differences between Group 2 and Group 3 for most measures (NRS, all WPAI scores, PROMIS‐PI, GAD‐7, and PHQ‐4), although MIDAS scores differed (median [interquartile range (IQR)]; 38 [20–58] vs. 55 [30–90], p < 0.001). Patients in Group 1 had significantly lower MIDAS (median [IQR];16 [7–30], p < 0.001), WPAI‐% total active impairment (mean (SD): Group 1 [30.9 (26.8)] vs. Group 2 [39.2 (24.5), p = 0.017], vs. Group 3 [45.9 (24.1), p < 0.001], vs. Group 4 [55.3 (23.0), p < 0.001], and PROMIS‐PI‐T score (Group 1 [60.3 (7.3)] vs. Group 2 [62.6 (6.4), p = 0.008], vs. Group 3 [64.6 (5.6), p < 0.001], vs. Group 4 [66.8 (5.9), p < 0.001]) compared to all other groups. Patients in Group 4 had significantly higher MIDAS (median (IQR): Group 4 [90 (52–138)] vs. Group 1 [16 (7–30), p < 0.001], vs. Group 2 [38 (20–58), p < 0.001], vs. Group 3 [55 (30–90), p < 0.001], WPAI‐%Presenteeism (Group 4 [50.4 (24.4)] vs. Group 1 [28.8 (24.9), p < 0.001], vs. Group 2 [34.9 (22.3), p < 0.001], vs. Group 3 [40.9 (22.3), p = 0.048], WPAI‐% total work productivity impairment (Group 4 [55.9 (26.1)] vs. Group 1 [32.1 (37.6), p < 0.001], vs. Group 2 [38.3 (24.0), p < 0.001], vs. Group 3 [44.6 (24.4), p = 0.019]), and WPAI‐%Total activity impairment (Group 4 [55.3 (23.0)] vs. Group 1 [30.9 (26.8), p < 0.001], vs. Group 2 [39.2 (24.5), p < 0.001], vs. Group 3 [45.9 (24.1), p = 0.025]) scores compared with all other groups. Conclusion Our data suggest that the use of a 15 headache day/month threshold to distinguish episodic and chronic migraine does not capture the burden of illness nor reflect the treatment needs of patients. These results have important implications for future refinements in the classification of migraine.

Abstract Objective We sought to investigate the patient experience of telemedicine for headache care during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic. Background The use of telemedicine has rapidly expanded and evolved since the beginning of the COVID‐19 pandemic. Telemedicine eliminates the physical and geographic barriers to health care, preserves personal protective equipment, and prevents the spread of COVID‐19 by allowing encounters to happen in a socially distanced way. However, few studies have assessed the patient perspective of telemedicine for headache care. Methods The American Migraine Foundation (AMF) designed a standardized electronic questionnaire to assess the patient experience of telemedicine for headache care between March and September 2020 to help inform future quality improvement as part of its patient advocacy initiative. The date parameters were identified as the emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 disease and the declaration of a national emergency in the United States. The questionnaire was distributed electronically to more than 100,000 members of the AMF community through social media platforms and the AMF email database. Results A total of 1172 patients responded to our electronic questionnaire, with 1098 complete responses. The majority, 1081/1153 (93.8%) patients, had a previous headache diagnosis prior to the telemedicine encounter. A total of 648/1127 (57.5%) patients reported that they had used telemedicine for headache care during the study period. Among those who participated in telehealth visits, 553/647 (85.5%) patients used it for follow‐up visits; 94/647 (14.5%) patients used it for new patient visits. During the telemedicine encounters, 282/645 (43.7%) patients were evaluated by headache specialists, 222/645 (34.4%) patients by general neurologists, 198/645 (30.7%) patients by primary care providers, 73/645 (11.3%) patients by headache nurse practitioners, and 21/645 (3.2%) patients by headache nurses. Only 47/633 (7.4%) patients received a new headache diagnosis from telemedicine evaluation, whereas the other 586/633 (92.6%) patients did not have a change in their diagnoses. During these visits, a new treatment was prescribed for 358/636 (52.3%) patients, whereas 278/636 (43.7%) patients did not have changes made to their treatment plan. The number (%) of patients who rated the telemedicine headache care experience as “very good,” “good,” “fair,” “poor,” and “other” were 396/638 (62.1%), 132/638 (20.7%), 67/638 (10.5%), 23/638 (3.6%), and 20/638 (3.1%), respectively. Detailed reasons for “other” are listed in the manuscript. Most patients, 573/638 (89.8%), indicated that they would prefer to continue to use telemedicine for their headache care, 45/638 (7.1%) patients would not, and 20/638 (3.1%) patients were unsure. Conclusions Our study evaluating the patient perspective demonstrated that telemedicine facilitated headache care for many patients during the COVID‐19 pandemic, resulting in high patient satisfaction rates, and a desire to continue to use telemedicine for future headache care among those who completed the online survey.

Abstract Objectives To describe the methodology and implications of the patient‐identified most bothersome symptom (PI‐MBS) measure used in the phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, and parallel‐group PROMISE‐2 trial and to evaluate the contribution of this measure to the assessment of the preventive migraine benefits of treatment. Background Although freedom from MBS is a coprimary endpoint in acute migraine treatment trials, its evaluation in preventive migraine trials is limited. The PROMISE‐2 study assessed a unique PI‐MBS measure as a secondary endpoint. Methods This was a secondary analysis of data from the PROMISE‐2 study. Adults with chronic migraine (CM) were randomized to receive intravenous (IV) eptinezumab 100 mg, eptinezumab 300 mg, or placebo, administered on day 0 and every 12 weeks. At the screening visit, patients were asked to verbally describe the MBS associated with their CM; the question format was open ended. At subsequent visits, patients were asked to rate the overall change in severity of their MBS from study inception to that time point, using a 7‐point ordinal scale ranging from “very much worse” (−3) to “very much improved” (+3). Patients completed the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) assessment during the same visits, using an identical rating scale and recall period. Endpoints were summarized descriptively; post hoc correlations using the methodologies of Pearson and Spearman were calculated to evaluate relationships between PGIC and PI‐MBS and between PGIC and mean monthly migraine days (MMDs; primary efficacy endpoint in PROMISE‐2). Results Altogether, 1072 patients received treatment (eptinezumab 100 mg, n = 356; eptinezumab 300 mg, n = 350; placebo, n = 366) and were included in the analysis. There were 23 unique MBS identified; those reported by ≥10 patients included light sensitivity (18.7%), nausea/vomiting (15.1%), pain with activity (13.7%), pain (12.4%), headache (11.2%), sound sensitivity (7.3%), throbbing/pulsating pain (4.7%), cognitive disruption (4.1%), fatigue (2.4%), mood changes (1.5%), and sensitivity to smell (0.9%). Four weeks after the first dose (week 4), the rates of much or very much improvement in PI‐MBS were higher with eptinezumab 100 mg (45%) and 300 mg (57%) than with placebo (29%). Four weeks after the second dose (week 16), the proportions with much or very much improvement in PI‐MBS had increased to 58%, 65%, and 36%, respectively. At each time point, the percentages of patients with PGIC ratings of much or very much improved were similar to those for patient‐reported improvement in PI‐MBS. Patient ratings of changes in PI‐MBS and PGIC correlated strongly across time points (Pearson, r range, 0.83–0.88; Spearman, r range, 0.83–0.89); the absolute value of the correlations was greater than the correlation among changes in MMDs and PGIC (Pearson, r range, −0.49 to −0.52; Spearman, r range, −0.49 to −0.52). Conclusions Among patients with CM in the PROMISE‐2 study, a broad range of PI‐MBS was reported at baseline. Throughout the study, patients treated with eptinezumab reported greater improvement in their PI‐MBS severity compared with placebo recipients, and this improvement correlated strongly with PGIC findings. Collectively, these results indicate that PI‐MBS is a promising and novel outcome measure for preventive trials of CM and thus may provide a unique patient‐centered approach for identifying and measuring the burden of migraine symptoms that matter most to each patient, as well as the benefits of treatment.

Background Although the European Medicines Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration have cleared several devices that use neuromodulation to provide clinical benefits in the acute or preventive treatment of migraine, the Clinical Trials Committee of the International Headache Society has not developed guidelines specifically for clinical trials of neuromodulation devices. In recognition of the distinct needs and challenges associated with their assessment in controlled trials, the Committee provides these recommendations for optimizing the design and conduct of controlled trials of neuromodulation devices for the acute and/or preventive treatment of migraine. Methods An international group of headache scientists and clinicians with expertise in neuromodulation evaluated clinical trials involving neuromodulation devices that have been published since 2000. The Clinical Trials Committee incorporated findings from this expert analysis into a new guideline for clinical trials of neuromodulation devices for the treatment of migraine. Results Key terms were defined and recommendations provided relative to the assessment of neuromodulation devices for acute treatment in adults, preventive treatment in adults, and acute and preventive treatment in children and adolescents. Ethical and administrative responsibilities were outlined, and a bibliography of previous research involving neuromodulation devices was created. Conclusions Adoption of these recommendations will improve the quality of evidence regarding this important area in migraine treatment.

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

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 Background and Objectives Prior studies have established an association between a history of abuse and the development of migraine. This cross‐sectional observational study explored the relationship between self‐reported abuse history with migraine‐related sensory hypersensitivity symptoms. Methods In total, 588 adult patients with migraine from the American Registry for Migraine Research completed questionnaires: Generalized Anxiety Disorder‐7, Patient Health Questionnaire‐2 for depression, Photosensitivity Assessment Questionnaire, Hyperacusis Questionnaire, and Allodynia Symptom Checklist. Using four binary screening questions, patients were asked to self‐report if they believed they had suffered emotional, physical, or sexual abuse in their lifetime. Differences in questionnaire scores between groups with and without a history of abuse were determined. Regression models adjusted for age, sex, and basic headache features analyzed the relationship between abuse history and sensory hypersensitivity symptoms. Moderation analysis explored the role of headache frequency in this relationship. Mediation analysis assessed the indirect (Mediated) effect (IE) of abuse on sensory hypersensitivity through depression or anxiety. Additional models analyzed relationships between sensory hypersensitivity symptoms and abuse subtypes or the number of abuse subtypes. Results Of 588 participants, 222 (38%) reported a history of abuse. Patients with a history of abuse reported statistically significantly greater average headache frequency (7.6 vs. 4.7 days, p = 0.030). Patients with a history of abuse also reported higher average or median questionnaire scores: anxiety (7.6 vs. 4.7, p < 0.001, d = 0.56), depression (1.7 vs. 1.3, p = 0.009, d = 0.24), photophobia (0.54 vs. 0.44, p < 0.001, d = 0.32), hyperacusis (19.6 vs. 14.9, p < 0.001, d = 0.49), ictal allodynia (6.0 vs. 3.0, p < 0.001, d = 0.46), and interictal allodynia (1.0 vs. 0.0, p < 0.001, d = 0.30). After controlling for patient age, sex and years lived with headache, abuse maintained a significant association with every sensory hypersensitivity measure. Headache frequency significantly moderated the relationship between a history of abuse with increased ictal allodynia ( p = 0.036). Anxiety significantly mediated the relationships between abuse with photophobia (IE = 0.03, 95% CI = 0.01–0.04), hyperacusis (IE = 1.51, 95% CI = 0.91–2.24), ictal allodynia (IE = 0.02, 95% CI = 0.01–0.04), and interictal allodynia (IE = 0.02, 95% CI = 0.01–0.06). Depression significantly mediated the relationship between abuse with photophobia (IE = 0.02, 95% CI = 0.01–0.03) and with hyperacusis (IE = 0.45, 95% CI = 0.11–0.88). The association between the individual subtypes of abuse and the number of subtypes of abuse with sensory hypersensitivity symptoms varied. Conclusion A history of abuse is associated with greater migraine‐related sensory hypersensitivity symptoms. To reduce the impact of abuse on migraine symptoms, future studies should explore mechanistic connections between abuse and migraine‐associated symptoms.

Abstract Objective To determine the potential efficacy of ubrogepant for acute treatment of migraine based on historical experience with triptans. Background Although triptans have improved migraine treatment, their efficacy and tolerability may limit their utility in some individuals. Ubrogepant is a small‐molecule, oral calcitonin gene–related peptide receptor antagonist approved by the Food and Drug Administration for acute treatment of migraine in adults. Methods This post hoc analysis of pooled data from the pivotal trials ACHIEVE I and II, identically designed, randomized, double‐blind, phase 3, single‐attack trials of ubrogepant in adults with a history of migraine with/without aura, examined the efficacy and tolerability of ubrogepant 50 mg versus placebo based on participants’ historical experience with triptans: triptan responder, triptan‐insufficient responder, and triptan naïve. Co‐primary efficacy endpoints were pain freedom and absence of most bothersome migraine‐associated symptom (MBS) 2 h post initial dose. Adverse events (AEs) within historical triptan experience subgroups were evaluated. Results In the pooled analysis population ( n = 1799), 682 (placebo, n = 350; ubrogepant 50 mg, n = 332), 451 (placebo, n = 223; ubrogepant, n = 228), and 666 (placebo, n = 339; ubrogepant, n = 327) participants were triptan responders, triptan‐insufficient responders, and triptan‐naïve, respectively. Response rates on co‐primary efficacy endpoints were higher for ubrogepant versus placebo across all groups. Treatment‐by‐subgroup interaction p values based on odds ratios for pain freedom ( p = 0.290) and absence of MBS ( p = 0.705) indicated no significant impact of historical triptan experience on ubrogepant efficacy. AE incidence for ubrogepant did not differ appreciably across historical triptan experience subgroups. Conclusions Ubrogepant efficacy and tolerability did not differ for the acute treatment of migraine in participants classified as triptan responders, triptan‐insufficient responders, and triptan‐naïve based on their historical experience with triptans.