Prognostic factors for chronic headache: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE: To identify predictors of prognosis and trial outcomes in prospective studies of people with chronic headache. METHODS: This was a systematic review of published literature in peer-reviewed journals. We included (1) randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions for chronic headache that reported subgroup analyses and (2) prospective cohort studies, published in English, since 1980. Participants included adults with chronic headache (including chronic headache, chronic migraine, and chronic tension-type headache with or without medication overuse headache). We searched key databases using free text and MeSH terms. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the methodologic quality of studies and overall quality of evidence identified using appropriate published checklists. RESULTS: We identified 16,556 titles, removed 663 duplicates, and reviewed 199 articles, of which 27 were included in the review-17 prospective cohorts and 10 RCTs with subgroup analyses reported. There was moderate-quality evidence indicating that depression, anxiety, poor sleep and stress, medication overuse, and poor self-efficacy for managing headaches are potential prognostic factors for poor prognosis and unfavorable outcomes from preventive treatment in chronic headache. There was inconclusive evidence about treatment expectations, age, age at onset, body mass index, employment, and several headache features. CONCLUSIONS: This review identified several potential predictors of poor prognosis and worse outcome postinterventions in people with chronic headache. The majority of these are modifiable. The findings also highlight the need for more longitudinal high-quality research of prognostic factors in chronic headache

Non-pharmacological self-management for people living with migraine or tension-type headache:a systematic review including analysis of intervention components

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of non-pharmacological self-management interventions against usual care, and to explore different components and delivery methods within those interventions PARTICIPANTS: People living with migraine and/or tension-type headache INTERVENTIONS: Non-pharmacological educational or psychological self-management interventions; excluding biofeedback and physical therapy.We assessed the overall effectiveness against usual care on headache frequency, pain intensity, mood, headache-related disability, quality of life and medication consumption in meta-analysis.We also provide preliminary evidence on the effectiveness of intervention components and delivery methods. RESULTS: We found a small overall effect for the superiority of self-management interventions over usual care, with a standardised mean difference (SMD) of -0.36 (-0.45 to -0.26) for pain intensity; -0.32 (-0.42 to -0.22) for headache-related disability, 0.32 (0.20 to 0.45) for quality of life and a moderate effect on mood (SMD=0.53 (-0.66 to -0.40)). We did not find an effect on headache frequency (SMD=-0.07 (-0.22 to 0.08)).Assessment of components and characteristics suggests a larger effect on pain intensity in interventions that included explicit educational components (-0.51 (-0.68 to -0.34) vs -0.28 (-0.40 to -0.16)); mindfulness components (-0.50 (-0.82 to -0.18) vs 0.34 (-0.44 to -0.24)) and in interventions delivered in groups vs one-to-one delivery (0.56 (-0.72 to -0.40) vs -0.39 (-0.52 to -0.27)) and larger effects on mood in interventions including a cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) component with an SMD of -0.72 (-0.93 to -0.51) compared with those without CBT -0.41 (-0.58 to -0.24). CONCLUSION: Overall we found that self-management interventions for migraine and tension-type headache are more effective than usual care in reducing pain intensity, mood and headache-related disability, but have no effect on headache frequency. Preliminary findings also suggest that including CBT, mindfulness and educational components in interventions, and delivery in groups may increase effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO 2016:CRD42016041291

The lived experience of chronic headache: a systematic review and synthesis of the qualitative literature.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the qualitative literature of the lived experience of people with a chronic headache disorder. BACKGROUND: Chronic headaches affect 3%-4% of the population. The most common chronic headache disorders are chronic migraine, chronic tension-type headache and medication overuse headache. We present a systematic review and meta-ethnographic synthesis of the lived experience of people with chronic headache. METHODS: We searched seven electronic databases, hand-searched nine journals and used a modified Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist to appraise study quality. Following thematic analysis we synthesised the data using a meta-ethnographic approach. RESULTS: We identified 3586 unique citations; full texts were examined for 86 studies and 4 were included in the review. Included studies differed in their foci: exploring, patient-centred outcomes, chronic headache as a socially invisible disease, psychological processes mediating impaired quality of life, and the process of medication overuse. Initial thematic analysis and subsequent synthesis gave three overarching themes: 'headache as a driver of behaviour' (directly and indirectly), 'the spectre of headache' and 'strained relationships'. CONCLUSION: This meta-synthesis of published qualitative evidence demonstrates that chronic headaches have a profound effect on people's lives, showing similarities with other pain conditions. There were insufficient data to explore the similarities and differences between different chronic headache disorders.National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research (Chronic Headache Education and Self-management Study (CHESS) ISRCTN Number: 79708100)

Measuring health-related quality of life in chronic headache:a comparative evaluation of the Chronic Headache Quality of Life Questionnaire and Headache Impact Test (HIT-6)

Objective: To compare the quality and acceptability of a new headache-specific patient-reported measure the Chronic Headache Quality of Life Questionnaire (CHQLQ), with the Headache Impact Test–6 item (HIT-6), in people meeting an epidemiological definition of chronic headaches.Methods: Participants in the feasibility stage of the Chronic Headache Education and Self-management Study (CHESS) (N=130) completed measures three times during a 12-week prospective cohort study. Data quality, measurement acceptability, reliability, validity, responsiveness to change, and score interpretation were determined. Semi-structured cognitive interviews explored measurement relevance, acceptability, clarity, and comprehensiveness.Results: Both measures were well completed with few missing items. The CHQLQ’s inclusion of emotional wellbeing items increased its relevance to participant’s experience of chronic headache. End effects were present at item level only for both measures. Structural assessment supported the three and one-factor solutions of the CHQLQ and HIT-6, respectively. Both the CHQLQ (range 0.87 to 0.94) and HIT-6 (0.90) were internally consistent, with acceptable temporal stability over 2-weeks (CHQLQ range 0.74 to 0.80; HIT-6 0.86). Both measures responded to change in headache-specific health at 12-weeks (CHQLQ smallest detectable change (improvement) range 3 to 5; HIT-6 2.1). Conclusions: While both measures are structurally valid, internally consistent, temporally stable and responsive to change, the CHQLQ has greater relevance to the patient experience of chronic headache. <br/

Measuring health-related quality of life in chronic headache: A comparative evaluation of the Chronic Headache Quality of Life Questionnaire and Headache Impact Test (HIT-6).

OBJECTIVE: To compare the quality and acceptability of a new headache-specific patient-reported measure, the Chronic Headache Quality of Life Questionnaire (CHQLQ) with the six-item Headache Impact Test (HIT-6), in people meeting an epidemiological definition of chronic headaches. METHODS: Participants in the feasibility stage of the Chronic Headache Education and Self-management Study (CHESS) (n = 130) completed measures three times during a 12-week prospective cohort study. Data quality, measurement acceptability, reliability, validity, responsiveness to change, and score interpretation were determined. Semi-structured cognitive interviews explored measurement relevance, acceptability, clarity, and comprehensiveness. RESULTS: Both measures were well completed with few missing items. The CHQLQ's inclusion of emotional wellbeing items increased its relevance to participant's experience of chronic headache. End effects were present at item level only for both measures. Structural assessment supported the three and one-factor solutions of the CHQLQ and HIT-6, respectively. Both the CHQLQ (range 0.87 to 0.94) and HIT-6 (0.90) were internally consistent, with acceptable temporal stability over 2 weeks (CHQLQ range 0.74 to 0.80; HIT-6 0.86). Both measures responded to change in headache-specific health at 12 weeks (CHQLQ smallest detectable change (improvement) range 3 to 5; HIT-6 2.1). CONCLUSIONS: While both measures are structurally valid, internally consistent, temporally stable, and responsive to change, the CHQLQ has greater relevance to the patient experience of chronic headache.Trial registration number: ISRCTN79708100. Registered 16th December 2015, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN79708100

Diagnostic and classification tools for chronic headache disorders: A systematic review

Background or aim: Despite guidelines and the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-III beta) criteria, the diagnosis of common chronic headache disorders can be challenging for non-expert clinicians. The aim of the review was to identify headache classification tools that could be used by a non-expert clinician to classify common chronic disorders in primary care. // Methods: We conducted a systematic literature review of studies validating diagnostic and classification headache tools published between Jan 1988 and June 2016 from key databases: MEDLINE, ASSIA, Embase, Web of Knowledge and PsycINFO. Quality assessment was assessed using items of the Quality of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2). // Results: The search identified 38 papers reporting the validation of 30 tools designed to diagnose, classify or screen for headache disorders; nine for multiple headache types, and 21 for one headache type only. We did not identify a tool validated in a primary care that can be used by a non-expert clinician to classify common chronic headache disorders and screen for primary headaches other than migraine and tension-type headache in primary care. // Conclusions: Despite the availability of many headache classification tools we propose the need for a tool that could support primary care clinicians in diagnosing and managing chronic headache disorders within primary care, and allow more targeted referral to headache specialists

[2008 Chess Team with trophy, True Grit, and a UMBC cheerleader]

Members of the 2008 Chess Team in the RAC posing with True Grit, UMBC's mascot, and a UMBC cheerleade

[2008 Chess Team with trophy, True Grit, and a UMBC cheerleader]

Members of the 2008 Chess Team in the RAC posing with True Grit, UMBC's mascot, and a UMBC cheerleade