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

Do novel European Headache Federation criteria identify differences in migraine burden?: baseline data of an international real-life study on resistant and refractory migraine (REFINE)

Question. We evaluated if EHF criteria for resistant (RES) and refractory (REF) migraine identify patients with more severe migraine burden. Methods. We performed an observational, multi center, international study to compare baseline characteristics, comorbidities, and PROMs of non-resistant and non-refractory (NRNR) migraine, RES and REF individuals in the REFINE study. Results. We included 175 individuals with NRNR migraine, 133 (39.7%) with RES and 27 (8.0%) with REF. Individuals with RES and REF migraine as compared to those with NRNR reported higher monthly migraine days (median=8, IQR=5-14 vs. median=13, IQR=10- 17 and median=15, IQR=10-20; p≤0.001), months of chronification (median=24, IQR=12-72 vs. median=40, IQR=12-108 and median=60, IQR=18-96; p=0.044), monthly days of symptomatic drugs assumption (median=8, IQR=5-15 vs. median=12, IQR=9-20 and median=15, IQR=10-20; p≤0.001), medication overuse (19.4% vs. 45.9% and 40.7%; p≤0.001). They also had more comorbidities such as depression (18.3% vs. 31.1% and 44.4%; p=0.002) and anxiety (13.7% vs. 21.1% and 37%; p=0.009). In these groups, PROMs also revealed a higher presence of anxiety (p≤0.001) and depression (p≤0.001) symptoms and poorer sleep quality (p=0.006). Regarding specific perceptions about migraine, RES and REF individuals reported higher impact of migraine on daily life (p≤0.001) and work, household work, and social life (p≤0.001), along with a lower perception of the effectiveness of their ongoing treatment for migraine (p≤0.001), when compared to NRNR subjects (Table 1). Conclusion. RES and REF migraine is associated with relevant migraine burden considering migraine features, comorbidities and scores at several scales; the severe burdensome condition of RES and REF is confirmed by the median number of monthly migraine days and PROMs.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Mutational spectrum of the SPG4 (SPAST) and SPG3A (ATL1) genes in Spanish patients with hereditary spastic paraplegia

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Hereditary Spastic Paraplegias (HSP) are characterized by progressive spasticity and weakness of the lower limbs. At least 45 loci have been identified in families with autosomal dominant (AD), autosomal recessive (AR), or X-linked hereditary patterns. Mutations in the <it>SPAST </it>(<it>SPG4</it>) and <it>ATL1 </it>(<it>SPG3A</it>) genes would account for about 50% of the ADHSP cases.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We defined the <it>SPAST </it>and <it>ATL1 </it>mutational spectrum in a total of 370 unrelated HSP index cases from Spain (83% with a pure phenotype).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We found 50 <it>SPAST </it>mutations (including two large deletions) in 54 patients and 7 <it>ATL1 </it>mutations in 11 patients. A total of 33 of the <it>SPAST </it>and 3 of the <it>ATL1 </it>were new mutations. A total of 141 (31%) were familial cases, and we found a higher frequency of mutation carriers among these compared to apparently sporadic cases (38% vs. 5%). Five of the <it>SPAST </it>mutations were predicted to affect the pre-mRNA splicing, and in 4 of them we demonstrated this effect at the cDNA level. In addition to large deletions, splicing, frameshifting, and missense mutations, we also found a nucleotide change in the stop codon that would result in a larger ORF.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>In a large cohort of Spanish patients with spastic paraplegia, <it>SPAST </it>and <it>ATL1 </it>mutations were found in 15% of the cases. These mutations were more frequent in familial cases (compared to sporadic), and were associated with heterogeneous clinical manifestations.</p

Diagnosis and management of migraine in ten steps

Migraine is a disabling primary headache disorder that directly affects more than one billion people worldwide. Despite its widespread prevalence, migraine remains under-diagnosed and under-treated. To support clinical decision-making, we convened a European panel of experts to develop a ten-step approach to the diagnosis and management of migraine. Each step was established by expert consensus and supported by a review of current literature, and the Consensus Statement is endorsed by the European Headache Federation and the European Academy of Neurology. In this Consensus Statement, we introduce typical clinical features, diagnostic criteria and differential diagnoses of migraine. We then emphasize the value of patient centricity and patient education to ensure treatment adherence and satisfaction with care provision. Further, we outline best practices for acute and preventive treatment of migraine in various patient populations, including adults, children and adolescents, pregnant and breastfeeding women, and older people. In addition, we provide recommendations for evaluating treatment response and managing treatment failure. Lastly, we discuss the management of complications and comorbidities as well as the importance of planning long-term follow-up

Structured headache services as the solution to the ill-health burden of headache: 1. Rationale and description

In countries where headache services exist at all, their focus is usually on specialist (tertiary) care. This is clinically and economically inappropriate: most headache disorders can effectively and more efficiently (and at lower cost) be treated in educationally supported primary care. At the same time, compartmentalizing divisions between primary, secondary and tertiary care in many health-care systems create multiple inefficiencies, confronting patients attempting to navigate these levels (the “patient journey”) with perplexing obstacles. High demand for headache care, estimated here in a needs-assessment exercise, is the biggest of the challenges to reform. It is also the principal reason why reform is necessary. The structured headache services model presented here by experts from all world regions on behalf of the Global Campaign against Headache is the suggested health-care solution to headache. It develops and refines previous proposals, responding to the challenge of high demand by basing headache services in primary care, with two supporting arguments. First, only primary care can deliver headache services equitably to the large numbers of people needing it. Second, with educational supports, they can do so effectively to most of these people. The model calls for vertical integration between care levels (primary, secondary and tertiary), and protection of the more advanced levels for the minority of patients who need them. At the same time, it is amenable to horizontal integration with other care services. It is adaptable according to the broader national or regional health services in which headache services should be embedded. It is, according to evidence and argument presented, an efficient and cost-effective model, but these are claims to be tested in formal economic analyses