The relationship between headache-attributed disability and lost productivity: 3 Attack frequency is the dominating variable.

BACKGROUND: In an earlier paper, we examined the relationship between headache-attributed disability, measured as proportion of time in ictal state, and lost productivity. In a linear model, we found positive and significant associations with lost paid worktime, lost household worktime and total lost productivity (paid + household), but with high variance, which was increased when headache intensity was introduced as a factor. We speculated that analyses based on headache frequency alone as the independent variable, eliminating both the subjectivity of intensity estimates and the uncertainties of duration, might show stronger associations. METHODS: Focusing on migraine, we used individual participant data from 16 countries surveyed either in population-based studies or in the Eurolight project. These data included frequency (headache days/month), usual attack duration (hours), usual headache intensity ("not bad", "quite bad", "very bad") and lost productivity from paid and household work according to enquiries using the Headache-Attributed Lost Time (HALT) questionnaire. We used multiple linear regressions, calculating regression equations along with unstandardized and standardized regression coefficients. We made line and bar charts to visualize relationships. RESULTS: Both frequency and intensity were significant predictors of lost productivity in all multiple linear regressions, but duration was a non-significant predictor in several of the regressions. Predicted productivity in paid work decreased among males by 0.75-0.85 days/3 months for each increase of 1 headache day/month, and among females by 0.34-0.53 days/3 months. In household chores, decreases in productivity for each added day/month of headache were more similar (0.67-0.87 days/3 months among males, 0.83-0.89 days/3 months among females). Visualizations showed that the impact of duration varied little across the range of 2-24 h. The standardized regression coefficients demonstrated that frequency was a much better predictor of lost productivity than intensity or duration. CONCLUSION: In the relationship between migraine-attributed impairment (symptom burden) and lost productivity, frequency (migraine days/month) is the dominating variable - more important than headache intensity and far more important than episode duration. This has major implications for current practice in headache care and for health policy and health-resource investment. Preventative drugs, grossly underutilized in current practice, offer a high prospect of economic benefit (cost-saving), but new preventative drugs are needed with better efficacy and/or tolerability

Structured education can improve primary-care management of headache: the first empirical evidence, from a controlled interventional study

Headache disorders are under-recognized and under-diagnosed. A principal factor in their suboptimal management is lack of headache-related training among health-care providers, especially in primary care. In Estonia, general practitioners (GPs) refer many headache patients to neurological specialist services, mostly unnecessarily. GPs request diagnostic investigations, which are usually unhelpful and therefore wasteful. GP-made headache diagnoses are often arcane and non-specific, and treatments based on these are inappropriate. The aim of this study was to develop, implement and test an educational model intended to improve headache-related primary health care in Estonia.This was a controlled study consisting of baseline observation, intervention and follow-up observation using the same measures of effect. It involved six GPs in Põlva and the surrounding region in Southern Estonia, together with their future patients presenting consecutively with headache as their main complaint, all with their consent. The primary outcome measure was referral rate (RR) to neurological specialist services. Secondary measures included number of GP-requested investigations, GP-made headache diagnoses and how these conformed to standard terminology (ICD-10), and GP-recommended or initiated treatments.RR at baseline (n = 490) was 39.5 %, falling to 34.7 % in the post-intervention group (n = 295) (overall reduction 4.8 %; p = 0.21). In the large subgroup of patients (88 %) for whom GPs made clearly headache-related ICD-10 diagnoses, RR fell by one fifth (from 40 to 32 %; p = 0.08), but the only diagnosis-related RR that showed a statistically significant reduction was (pericranial) myalgia (19 to 3 %; p = 0.03). There was a significant increase towards use of more specific diagnoses. Use of investigations in diagnosing headache reduced from 26 to 4 % (p < 0.0001). Initiation of treatment by GPs increased from 58 to 81 % (p < 0.0001).These were modest changes in GPs entrenched behaviour. Nevertheless they were empirical evidence that GPs practice in the field of headache could be improved by structured education. Furthermore, the changes were likely to be cost-saving. To our knowledge this study is the first to produce such evidence

Guidelines for telematic second opinion consultation in headaches in Europe: on behalf of the European Headache Federation

The seeking of a second opinion is the long-established process whereby a physician or expert from the same or a similar specialty is invited to assess a clinical case in order to confirm or reject a diagnosis or treatment plan. Seeking a second opinion has become more common in recent years, and the trend is associated with significant changes in the patient-doctor relationship. Telemedicine is attractive because it is not only fast but also affordable and thus makes it possible to reach highly qualified centres and experts that would otherwise be inaccessible, being impossible, or too expensive, to reach by any surface transport. In Europe, the European Headache Federation (EHF), being able to draw on a group of headache experts covering all the European languages, is the organisation best placed to provide qualified second-opinion consultation on difficult headache cases and to develop a Headache Medical Opinion Service Centre. The provision of good quality clinical information is crucial to the formulation of a valid, expert second opinion. This preliminary step can be properly accomplished only by the primary health care provider through the furnishing of an appropriate clinical report, together with the results of all available tests, including original films of all imaging studies already performed. On receiving the EHF's proposed standardised data collection form, properly filled in, we may be sure that we have all the relevant data necessary to formulate a valid expert second opinion. This form can be accessed electronically and downloaded from the EHF website. Once finalised, the EHF second opinion project should be treated as a pilot strategy that requires careful monitoring (for the first year at least), so that appropriate changes, as suggested by the retrospective analysis and its quality control, can be implemented

Headache disorders are third cause of disability worldwide

Commentar

Evaluation of headache service quality indicators: pilot implementation in two specialist-care centres

Background Evaluating quality of health care is increasingly recognized as an important contributor to the advancement of health-care delivery. We recently developed a set of quality indicators for headache care, intended to be applicable across countries, cultures and settings so that deficiencies in headache care worldwide might be recognized and rectified. These indicators themselves require evaluation and proof of fitness for purpose. This pilot study begins this process. Methods We tested the quality indicators in the tertiary headache centres of the University of Duisburg-Essen in Essen, Germany, and the Hospital da Luz in Lisbon, Portugal. Using seven previously-developed enquiry instruments, we interrogated health-care providers (HCPs), including doctors, nurses, psychologists and physiotherapists, as well as consecutive patients and their medical records. Results The questionnaires were easily understood by both HCPs and patients and were not unduly time-consuming. The results from the two headache centres were comparable despite their differences in structure, staffing and language. These findings met the purpose of the study. Diagnoses were made according to ICHD criteria and critically evaluated during follow-up. However, diagnostic diaries and instruments assessing burden and response to treatment were not always in place or routinely utilised. Triage systems adjusted waiting times to urgency of need. Treatment plans included pathways to other specialities. Patients felt welcomed, reassured and educated, and were mostly satisfied. Discussion points arose over inclusion of psychological therapies in treatment plans; over recording of outcomes; over indicators of efficiency and equitability (protocols to limit wastage of resources, systems to measure input costs and means of ensuring equal access to the services); and over protocols for reporting serious adverse events. Conclusion This pilot study to assess feasibility of the methods and acceptability of the instruments of headache service quality evaluation was successful. The project is ready to be taken into its next stages

Prevalence of primary headaches in Germany: results of the German Headache Consortium Study

We investigated the prevalence of migraine (MIG), tension-type headache (TTH), and chronic headache in a population-based sample in Germany. A total of 18,000 subjects aged between 18 and 65 years were screened from 2003 until 2005 using a validated questionnaire. Overall 9,944 participants (55.2%) responded (mean age 43 ± 13.1 years, 52.7% women). Headache frequency <15 days/month was reported by 5,350 (55.5%) subjects of whom 1,601 (16.6%, [95% confidence interval (95% CI): 15.9–17.4]) reported episodic MIG, 1,202 (12.5%, 95% CI 11.8–13.1) episodic TTH, and 1,150 (11.9%, [11.3–12.6]) episodic MIG + episodic TTH, 1,396 (14.5%, [13.8–15.2]) unclassifiable headache. In women, episodic MIG peaked between 36 and 40 years, episodic MIG + TTH between 18 and 35 years and episodic TTH between 56 and 66 years. In men, episodic MIG was predominant between 36 and 45 years, episodic MIG + TTH between 26 and 35 years and episodic TTH showed comparable frequency between 36 and 66 years. Headache ≥15 days/month was reported by 2.6% (n = 255, [95% CI 2.3–3]). Chronic MIG was reported by 1.1% (n = 108, [0.91–1.33]), chronic TTH (n = 50, [95% CI 0.4–0.7]), chronic MIG + TTH 0.8% (n = 74, 95% CI 0.6–0.9) and unclassifiable headache 0.2% (n = 23, [95% CI 0.1–0.3]). Chronic headache was more frequent in women compared to men with the highest prevalence between 46 and 65 years. It is of note that the number of subjects with chronic headache is small in all age groups. The results of our large, population-based study provide reliable, age- and sex-specific estimates of the prevalence of primary headache disorders in Germany. The prevalence with respect to episodic and chronic primary headache disorders in Germany is comparable to other European countries and the USA

What do the patients with medication overuse headache expect from treatment and what are the preferred sources of information?

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited

Migraine: a major debilitating chronic non-communicable disease in Brazil, evidence from two national surveys

Background Even though migraine and other primary headache disorders are common and debilitating, major health surveys in Brazil have not included them. We repair this omission by combining data on non-communicable diseases (NCDs) in the Brazilian National Health Survey (PNS) 2013 with epidemiological data on migraine prevalence and severity in Brazil. The purpose is to rank migraine and its impact on public healthh among NCDs in order to support public-health policy toward better care for migraine in Brazil. Methods Data from PNS, a cross-sectional population-based study, were merged with estimates made by the Brazilian Headache Epidemiology Study (BHES) of migraine prevalence (numbers of people affected and of candidates for migraine preventative therapy) and migraine-attributed disability. Results Migraine ranked second in prevalence among the NCDs, and as the highest cause of disability among adults in Brazil. Probable migraine accounted for substantial additional disability. An estimated total of 5.5 million people in Brazil (or 9.5 million with probable migraine included) were in need of preventative therapy. Conclusion On this evidence, migraine should be included in the next health surveys in Brazil. Public-health policy should recognize the burden of migraine expressed in public ill health, and promote health services offering better diagnosis and treatment

Headache, depression and anxiety: associations in the Eurolight project.

Headache disorders and psychiatric disorders are both common, while evidence, mostly pertaining to migraine, suggests they are comorbid more often than might be expected by chance. There are good reasons for establishing whether they are: symptoms of comorbid illnesses may summate synergistically; comorbidities hinder management, negatively influencing outcomes; high-level comorbidity indicates that, where one disease occurs, the other should be looked for. The Eurolight project gathered population-based data on these disorders from 6624 participants.Eurolight was a cross-sectional survey sampling from the adult populations (18-65 years) of 10 EU countries. We used data from six. The questionnaire included headache-diagnostic questions based on ICHD-II, the Headache-Attributed Lost Time (HALT) questionnaire, and HADS for depression and anxiety. We estimated odds ratios (ORs) to show associations between migraine, tension-type headache (TTH) or probable medication-overuse headache (pMOH) and depression or anxiety.pMOH was most strongly associated with both psychiatric disorders: for depression, ORs (vs no headache) were 5.5 [2.2-13.5] (p < 0.0001) in males, 5.5 [2.9-10.5] (p < 0.0001) in females; for anxiety, ORs were 10.4 [4.9-21.8] (p < 0.0001) and 7.1 [4.5-11.2] (p < 0.0001). Migraine was also associated with both: for depression, ORs were 2.1 [1.3-3.4] (p = 0.002) and 1.8 [1.1-3.1] (p = 0.030); for anxiety 4.2 [2.8-6.3] (p < 0.0001) and 2.4 [1.7-3.4] (p < 0.0001). TTH showed associations only with anxiety: ORs 2.5 [1.7-3.7] (p < 0.0001) for males, 1.5 [1.1-2.1] (p = 0.021) for females. Participants with migraine carried 19.1 % probability of comorbid anxiety, 6.9 % of depression and 5.1 % of both, higher than the representative general-population sample (14.3, 5.6 and 3.8 %). Probabilities in those with MOH were 38.8, 16.9 and 14.4 %; in TTH, they did not exceed those of the whole sample. Comorbid psychiatric disorder did not add to headache-attributed productive time losses, but weak associations existed (R (2)  = 0.020-0.082) for all headache types between lost productive time and probabilities of depression and, less so, anxiety.In this large study we confirmed that depression and especially anxiety are comorbid more than by chance with migraine, and showed the same is true, but more strongly, with MOH. Arguably, migraine patients and, more certainly, MOH patients should be screened with HADS in pursuit of best outcomes