Prevalence of headache in Europe: a review for the Eurolight project

The main aim of the present study was to do an update on studies on headache epidemiology as a preparation for the multinational European study on the prevalence and burden of headache and investigate the impact of different methodological issues on the results. The study was based on a previous study, and a systematic literature search was performed to identify the newest studies. More than 50% of adults indicate that they suffer from headache in general during the last year or less, but when asked specifically about tension-type headache, the prevalence was 60%. Migraine occurs in 15%, chronic headache in about 4% and possible medication overuse headache in 1–2%. Cluster headache has a lifetime prevalence of 0.2–0.3%. Most headaches are more prevalent in women, and somewhat less prevalent in children and youth. Some studies indicate that the headache prevalence is increasing during the last decades in Europe. As to methodological issues, lifetime prevalences are in general higher than 1-year prevalences, but the exact time frame of headache (1 year, 6 or 3 months, or no time frame stated) seems to be of less importance. Studies using personal interviews seem to give somewhat higher prevalences than those using questionnaires

Prophylactic treatment of migraine; the patient's view, a qualitative study

Contains fulltext : 109202.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Prophylactic treatment is an important but under-utilised option for the management of migraine. Patients and physicians appear to have reservations about initiating this treatment option. This paper explores the opinions, motives and expectations of patients regarding prophylactic migraine therapy. METHODS: A qualitative focus group study in general practice in the Netherlands with twenty patients recruited from urban and rural general practices. Three focus group meetings were held with 6-7 migraine patients per group (2 female and 1 male group). All participants were migraine patients according to the IHS (International Headache Society); 9 had experience with prophylactic medication. The focus group meetings were analysed using a general thematic analysis. RESULTS: For patients several distinguished factors count when making a decision on prophylactic treatment. The decision of a patient on prophylactic medication is depending on experience and perspectives, grouped into five categories, namely the context of being active or passive in taking the initiative to start prophylaxis; assessing the advantages and disadvantages of prophylaxis; satisfaction with current migraine treatment; the relationship with the physician and the feeling to be heard; and previous steps taken to prevent migraine. CONCLUSION: In addition to the functional impact of migraine, the decision to start prophylaxis is based on a complex of considerations from the patient's perspective (e.g. perceived burden of migraine, expected benefits or disadvantages, interaction with relatives, colleagues and physician). Therefore, when advising migraine patients about prophylaxis, their opinions should be taken into account. Patients need to be open to advice and information and intervention have to be offered at an appropriate moment in the course of migraine

An Educational and Physical Program to Reduce Headache, Neck/Shoulder Pain in a Working Community: A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial

Background: Noninvasive physical management is often prescribed for headache and neck pain. Systematic reviews, however, indicate that the evidence of its efficacy is limited. Our aim was to evaluate the effectiveness of a workplace educational and physical program in reducing headache and neck/shoulder pain. Methodology/Principal Findings: Cluster-randomized controlled trial. All municipal workers of the City of Turin, Italy, were invited to participate. Those who agreed were randomly assigned, according to their departments, to the intervention group (IG) or to the control group and were given diaries for the daily recording of pain episodes for 1 month (baseline). Subsequently, only the IG (119 departments, 923 workers) began the physical and educational program, whereas the control group (117 departments, 990 workers) did not receive any intervention. All participants were again given diaries for the daily recording of pain episodes after 6 months of intervention. The primary outcome was the change in the frequency of headache (expressed as the proportion of subjects with a 6550% reduction of frequency; responder rate); among the secondary outcomes there were the absolute reduction of the number of days per month with headache and neck/shoulder pain. Differences between the two groups were evaluated using mixed-effect regression models. The IG showed a higher responder rate [risk ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI)] for headache (1.58; 1.28 to 1.92) and for neck/shoulder pain (1.53; 1.27 to 1.82), and a larger reduction of the days per month (95% CI) with headache (-1.72; -2.40 to -1.04) and with neck/shoulder pain (-2.51; -3.56 to -1.47). Conclusions: The program effectively reduced headache and neck/shoulder pain in a large working community and appears to be easily transferable to primary-care settings. Further trials are needed to investigate the program effectiveness in a clinical setting, for highly selected patients suffering from specific headache types. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00551980. \ua9 2012 Mongini et al

One-year prevalence and the impact of migraine and tension-type headache in Turkey: a nationwide home-based study in adults

Several studies have shown that the prevalence of migraine and tension-type headache (TTH) varied between different geographical regions. Therefore, there is a need of a nationwide prevalence study for headache in our country, located between Asia and Europe. This nationwide study was designed to estimate the 1-year prevalence of migraine and TTH and analyse the clinical features, the impact as well as the demographic and socio-economic characteristics of the participant households in Turkey. We planned to investigate 6,000 representative households in 21 cities of Turkey; and a total of 5,323 households (response rate of 89%) aged between 18 and 65 years were examined for headache by 33 trained physicians at home on the basis of the diagnostic criteria of the second edition of the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-II). The electronically registered questionnaire was based on the headache features, the associated symptoms, demographic and socio-economic situation and history. Of 5,323 participants (48.8% women; mean age 35.9 ± 12 years) 44.6% reported recurrent headaches during the last 1 year and 871 were diagnosed with migraine at a prevalence rate of 16.4% (8.5% in men and 24.6% in women), whereas only 270 were diagnosed with TTH at a prevalence rate of 5.1% (5.7% in men and 4.5% in women). The 1-year prevalence of probable migraine was 12.4% and probable TTH was 9.5% additionally. The rate of migraine with aura among migraineurs was 21.5%. The prevalence of migraine was highest among 35–40-year-old women while there were no differences in age groups among men and in TTH overall. More than 2/3 of migraineurs had ever consulted a physician whereas only 1/3 of patients with TTH had ever consulted a physician. For women, the migraine prevalence was higher among the ones with a lower income, while among men, it did not show any change by income. Migraine prevalence was lower in those with a lower educational status compared to those with a high educational status. Chronic daily headache was present in 3.3% and the prevalence of medication overuse headache was 2.1% in our population. There was an important impact of migraine with a monthly frequency of 5.9 ± 6, and an attack duration of 35.1 ± 72 h, but only 4.9% were on prophylactic treatment. The one-year prevalence of migraine estimated as 16.4% was similar or even higher than world-wide reported migraine prevalence figures and identical to a previous nation-wide study conducted in 1998, whereas the TTH prevalence was much lower using the same methodology with the ICHD-II criteria

Chronic migraine plus medication overuse headache: two entities or not?

Chronic migraine (CM) represents migraine natural evolution from its episodic form. It is realized through a chronicization phase that may require months or years and varies from patient to patient. The transition to more frequent attacks pattern is influenced by lifestyle, life events, comorbid conditions and personal genetic terrain, and it often leads to acute drugs overuse. Medication overuse headache (MOH) may complicate every type of headache and all the drugs employed for headache treatment can cause MOH. The first step in the management of CM complicated by medication overuse must be the withdrawal of the overused drugs and a detoxification treatment. The goal is not only to detoxify the patient and stop the chronic headache but also to improve responsiveness to acute or prophylactic drugs. Different methods have been suggested: gradual or abrupt withdrawal; home treatment, hospitalization, or a day-hospital setting; re-prophylaxes performed immediately or at the end of the wash-out period. Up to now, only topiramate and local injection of onabotulinumtoxinA have shown efficacy as therapeutic agents for re-prophylaxis after detoxification in patients with CM with and without medication overuse. Although the two treatments showed similar efficacy, onabotulinumtoxinA is associated with a better adverse events profile. Recently, the Phase III Research Evaluating Migraine Prophylaxis Therapy (PREEMPT) clinical program proved that patients with CM, even those with MOH, are the ones most likely to benefit from onabotulinumtoxinA treatment. Furthermore, it provided an injection paradigm that can be used as a guide for a correct administration of onabotulinumtoxinA