Reference programme: Diagnosis and treatment of headache disorders and facial pain. Danish Headache Society, 2nd Edition, 2012

Headache and facial pain are among the most common, disabling and costly disorders in Europe. Correct diagnosis and treatment is important for achieving a high quality of care. As a national organisation whose role is to educate and advocate for the needs of patients with primary headaches, the Danish Headache Society has set up a task force to develop a set of guidelines for the diagnosis, organisation and treatment of the most common types of headaches and for trigeminal neuralgia in Denmark. The guideline was published in Danish in 2010 and has been a great success. The Danish Headache Society decided to translate and publish our guideline in English to stimulate the discussion on optimal organisation and treatment of headache disorders and to encourage other national headache authorities to produce their own guidelines. The recommendations regarding the most common primary headaches and trigeminal neuralgia are largely in accordance with the European guidelines produced by the European Federation of Neurological Societies. The guideline provides a practical tool for use in daily clinical practice for primary care physicians, neurologists with a common interest in headache, as well as other health-care professionals treating headache patients. The guideline first describes how to examine and diagnose the headache patient and how headache treatment is organised in Denmark. This description is followed by individual sections on the characteristics, diagnosis, differential diagnosis and treatment of each of the major headache disorders and trigeminal neuralgia. The guideline includes many tables to facilitate a quick overview. Finally, the particular problems regarding headache in children and headache in relation to female hormones and pregnancy are described

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

Definitions of medication-overuse headache in population-based studies and their implications on prevalence estimates:a systematic review

Background Case definitions of medication-overuse headache (MOH) in population-based research have changed over time. This study aims to review MOH prevalence reports with respect to these changes, and to propose a practical case definition for future studies based on the ICHD-3 beta. Methods A systematic literature search was conducted to identify MOH prevalence studies. Findings were summarized according to diagnostic criteria. Results Twenty-seven studies were included. The commonly used case definition for MOH was headache ≥15 days/month with concurrent medication overuse ≥3 months. There were varying definitions for what was considered as overuse. Studies that all used ICHD-2 criteria showed a wide range of prevalence among adults: 0.5%–7.2%. Conclusions There are limits to comparing prevalence of MOH across studies and over time. The wide range of reported prevalence might not only be due to changing criteria, but also the diversity of countries now publishing data. The criterion “headache occurring on ≥15 days per month” with concurrent medication overuse can be applied in population-based studies. However, the new requirement that a respondent must have “a preexisting headache disorder” has not been previously validated. Exclusion of other headache diagnoses by expert evaluation and ancillary examinations is not feasible in large population-based studies. </jats:sec