Recommendations for headache service organisation and delivery in Europe.

Headache disorders are a major public-health priority, and there is pressing need for effective solutions to them. Better health care for headache—and ready access to it—are central to these solutions; therefore, the organisation of headache-related services within the health systems of Europe becomes an important focus. These recommendations are the result of collaboration between the European Headache Federation and Lifting The Burden: the Global Campaign against Headache. The process of development included wide consultation. To meet the very high level of need for headache care both effectively and efficiently, the recommendations formulate a basic three-level model of health-care organisation rationally spread across primary and secondary health-care sectors, taking account of the different skills and expertise in these sectors. They recognise that health services are differently structured in countries throughout Europe, and not always adequately resourced. Therefore, they aim to be adaptable to suit these differences. They are set out in five sections: needs assessment, description of the model, adaptation, standards and educational implications

Headache and pregnancy. a systematic review

This systematic review summarizes the existing data on headache and pregnancy with a scope on clinical headache phenotypes, treatment of headaches in pregnancy and effects of headache medications on the child during pregnancy and breastfeeding, headache related complications, and diagnostics of headache in pregnancy. Headache during pregnancy can be both primary and secondary, and in the last case can be a symptom of a life-threatening condition. The most common secondary headaches are stroke, cerebral venous thrombosis, subarachnoid hemorrhage, pituitary tumor, choriocarcinoma, eclampsia, preeclampsia, idiopathic intracranial hypertension, and reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome. Migraine is a risk factor for pregnancy complications, particularly vascular events. Data regarding other primary headache conditions are still scarce. Early diagnostics of the disease manifested by headache is important for mother and fetus life. It is especially important to identify "red flag symptoms" suggesting that headache is a symptom of a serious disease. In order to exclude a secondary headache additional studies can be necessary: electroencephalography, ultrasound of the vessels of the head and neck, brain MRI and MR angiography with contrast ophthalmoscopy and lumbar puncture. During pregnancy and breastfeeding the preferred therapeutic strategy for the treatment of primary headaches should always be a non-pharmacological one. Treatment should not be postponed as an undermanaged headache can lead to stress, sleep deprivation, depression and poor nutritional intake that in turn can have negative consequences for both mother and baby. Therefore, if non-pharmacological interventions seem inadequate, a well-considered choice should be made concerning the use of medication, taking into account all the benefits and possible risks

Male and female sex hormones in primary headaches

Background: The three primary headaches, tension-type headache, migraine and cluster headache, occur in both genders, but all seem to have a sex-specific prevalence. These gender differences suggest that both male and female sex hormones could have an influence on the course of primary headaches. This review aims to summarise the most relevant and recent literature on this topic. Methods: Two independent reviewers searched PUBMED in a systematic manner. Search strings were composed using the terms LH, FSH, progesteron, estrogen, DHEA, prolactin, testosterone, androgen, headach, migrain, "tension type" or cluster. A timeframe was set limiting the search to articles published in the last 20 years, after January 1st 1997. Results: Migraine tends to follow a classic temporal pattern throughout a woman's life corresponding to the fluctuation of estrogen in the different reproductive stages. The estrogen withdrawal hypothesis forms the basis for most of the assumptions made on this behalf. The role of other hormones as well as the importance of sex hormones in other primary headaches is far less studied. Conclusion: The available literature mainly covers the role of sex hormones in migraine in women. Detailed studies especially in the elderly of both sexes and in cluster headache and tension-type headache are warranted to fully elucidate the role of these hormones in all primary headaches

Triptans and CGRP blockade - impact on the cranial vasculature

The trigeminovascular system plays a key role in the pathophysiology of migraine. The activation of the trigeminovascular system causes release of various neurotransmitters and neuropeptides, including serotonin and calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), which modulate pain transmission and vascular tone. Thirty years after discovery of agonists for serotonin 5-HT1B and 5-HT1D receptors (triptans) and less than fifteen after the proof of concept of the gepant class of CGRP receptor antagonists, we are still a long way from understanding their precise site and mode of action in migraine. The effect on cranial vasculature is relevant, because all specific anti-migraine drugs and migraine pharmacological triggers may act in perivascular space. This review reports the effects of triptans and CGRP blocking molecules on cranial vasculature in humans, focusing on their specific relevance to migraine treatment

Headache service quality evaluation : implementation of quality indicators in primary care in Europe

Funding Information: The German part was supported by Novartis®, without influence on design, conduct, analysis or reporting. Other parts received no financial support. Publisher Copyright: © 2021, The Author(s).Background: Lifting The Burden (LTB) and European Headache Federation (EHF) have developed a set of headache service quality indicators, successfully tested in specialist headache centres. Their intended application includes all levels of care. Here we assess their implementation in primary care. Methods: We included 28 primary-care clinics in Germany (4), Turkey (4), Latvia (5) and Portugal (15). To implement the indicators, we interviewed 111 doctors, 92 nurses and medical assistants, 70 secretaries, 27 service managers and 493 patients, using the questionnaires developed by LTB and EHF. In addition, we evaluated 675 patients’ records. Enquiries were in nine domains: diagnosis, individualized management, referral pathways, patient education and reassurance, convenience and comfort, patient satisfaction, equity and efficiency of headache care, outcome assessment and safety. Results: The principal finding was that Implementation proved feasible and practical in primary care. In the process, we identified significant quality deficits. Almost everywhere, histories of headache, especially temporal profiles, were captured and/or assessed inaccurately. A substantial proportion (20%) of patients received non-specific ICD codes such as R51 (“headache”) rather than specific headache diagnoses. Headache-related disability and quality of life were not part of routine clinical enquiry. Headache diaries and calendars were not in use. Waiting times were long (e.g., about 60 min in Germany). Nevertheless, most patients (> 85%) expressed satisfaction with their care. Almost all the participating clinics provided equitable and easy access to treatment, and follow-up for most headache patients, without unnecessary barriers. Conclusions: The study demonstrated that headache service quality indicators can be used in primary care, proving both practical and fit for purpose. It also uncovered quality deficits leading to suboptimal treatment, often due to a lack of knowledge among the general practitioners. There were failures of process also. These findings signal the need for additional training in headache diagnosis and management in primary care, where most headache patients are necessarily treated. More generally, they underline the importance of headache service quality evaluation in primary care, not only to identify-quality failings but also to guide improvements. This study also demonstrated that patients’ satisfaction is not, on its own, a good indicator of service quality.publishersversionPeer reviewe

Comorbidities of primary headache disorders: a literature review with meta-analysis

Background: Primary headache disorders are common and burdensome conditions. They are associated to several comorbidities, such as cardiovascular or psychiatric ones, which, in turn, contribute to the global burden of headache. The aim of this study is to provide a comprehensive description of the pooled prevalence of comorbidities of primary headache disorders using a meta-analytical approach based on studies published between 2000 and 2020. Methods: Scopus was searched for primary research (clinical and population studies) in which medical comorbidities were described in adults with primary headache disorders. Comorbidities were extracted using a taxonomy derived from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study. We compared prevalence of comorbidities among headache sufferers against general population using GBD-2019 estimates, and compared comorbidities’ proportions in clinical vs. population studies, and by age and gender. Results: A total of 139 studies reporting information on 4.19 million subjects with primary headaches were included: in total 2.75 million comorbidities were reported (median per subject 0.64, interquartile range 0.32–1.07). The most frequently addressed comorbidities were: depressive disorders, addressed in 51 studies (pooled proportion 23 %, 95 % CI 20–26 %); hypertension, addressed in 48 studies (pooled proportion 24 %, 95 % CI 22–26 %); anxiety disorders addressed in 40 studies (pooled proportion 25 %, 95 % CI 22–28 %). For conditions such as anxiety, depression and back pain, prevalence among headache sufferers was higher than in GBD-2109 estimates. Associations with average age and female prevalence within studies showed that hypertension was more frequent in studies with higher age and less females, whereas fibromyalgia, restless leg syndrome, and depressive disorders were more frequent in studies with younger age and more female. Conclusions: Some of the most relevant comorbidities of primary headache disorders – back pain, anxiety and depression, diabetes, ischemic heart disease and stroke – are among the most burdensome conditions, together with headache themselves, according to the GBD study. A joint treatment of headaches and of these comorbidities may positively impact on headache sufferers’ health status and contribute to reduce the impact of a group of highly burdensome diseases

CGRP and migraine from a cardiovascular point of view: what do we expect from blocking CGRP?

Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) is a neuropeptide with a pivotal role in the pathophysiology of migraine. Blockade of CGRP is a new therapeutic target for patients with migraine. CGRP and its receptors are distributed not only in the central and peripheral nervous system but also in the cardiovascular system, both in blood vessels and in the heart. We reviewed the current evidence on the role of CGRP in the cardiovascular system in order to understand the possible short- and long-term effect of CGRP blockade with monoclonal antibodies in migraineurs. In physiological conditions, CGRP has important vasodilating effects and is thought to protect organs from ischemia. Despite the aforementioned cardiovascular implication, preventive treatment with CGRP antibodies has shown no relevant cardiovascular side effects. Results from long-term trials and from real life are now needed

Effect of exogenous estrogens and progestogens on the course of migraine during reproductive age

We systematically reviewed data about the effect of exogenous estrogens and progestogens on the course of migraine during reproductive age. Thereafter a consensus procedure among international experts was undertaken to develop statements to support clinical decision making, in terms of possible effects on migraine course of exogenous estrogens and progestogens and on possible treatment of headache associated with the use or with the withdrawal of hormones. Overall, quality of current evidence is low. Recommendations are provided for all the compounds with available evidence including the conventional 21/7 combined hormonal contraception, the desogestrel only oral pill, combined oral contraceptives with shortened pill-free interval, combined oral contraceptives with estradiol supplementation during the pill-free interval, extended regimen of combined hormonal contraceptive with pill or patch, combined hormonal contraceptive vaginal ring, transdermal estradiol supplementation with gel, transdermal estradiol supplementation with patch, subcutaneous estrogen implant with cyclical oral progestogen. As the quality of available data is poor, further research is needed on this topic to improve the knowledge about the use of estrogens and progestogens in women with migraine. There is a need for better management of headaches related to the use of hormones or their withdrawal

Structured headache services as the solution to the ill-health burden of headache. 3. Modelling effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of implementation in Europe: findings and conclusions

Background There have been several calls for estimations of costs and consequences of headache interventions to inform European public-health policies. In a previous paper, in the absence of universally accepted methodology, we developed headache-type-specific analytical models to be applied to implementation of structured headache services in Europe as the health-care solution to headache. Here we apply this methodology and present the findings. Methods Data sources were published evidence and expert opinions, including those from an earlier economic evaluation framework using the WHO-CHOICE model. We used three headache-type-specific analytical models, for migraine, tension-type-headache (TTH) and medication-overuse-headache (MOH). We considered three European Region case studies, from Luxembourg, Russia and Spain to include a range of health-care systems, comparing current (suboptimal) care versus target care (structured services implemented, with provider-training and consumer-education). We made annual and 5-year cost estimates from health-care provider and societal perspectives (2020 figures, euros). We expressed effectiveness as healthy life years (HLYs) gained, and cost-effectiveness as incremental cost-effectiveness-ratios (ICERs; cost to be invested/HLY gained). We applied WHO thresholds for cost-effectiveness. Results The models demonstrated increased effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness (migraine) or cost saving (TTH, MOH) from the provider perspective over one and 5 years and consistently across the health-care systems and settings. From the societal perspective, we found structured headache services would be economically successful, not only delivering increased effectiveness but also cost saving across headache types and over time. The predicted magnitude of cost saving correlated positively with country wage levels. Lost productivity had a major impact on these estimates, but sensitivity analyses showed the intervention remained cost-effective across all models when we assumed that remedying disability would recover only 20% of lost productivity. Conclusions This is the first study to propose a health-care solution for headache, in the form of structured headache services, and evaluate it economically in multiple settings. Despite numerous challenges, we demonstrated that economic evaluation of headache services, in terms of outcomes and costs, is feasible as well as necessary. Furthermore, it is strongly supportive of the proposed intervention, while its framework is general enough to be easily adapted and implemented across Europe

Structured headache services as the solution to the ill-health burden of headache. 2. Modelling effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of implementation in Europe: methodology

Background Health economic evaluations support health-care decision-making by providing information on the costs and consequences of health interventions. No universally accepted methodology exists for modelling effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interventions designed to close treatment gaps for headache disorders in countries of Europe (or elsewhere). Our aim here, within the European Brain Council's Value-of-Treatment project, was to develop headache-type-specific analytical models to be applied to implementation of structured headache services in Europe as the health-care solution to headache. Methods We developed three headache-type-specific decision-analytical models using the WHO-CHOICE framework and adapted these for three European Region country settings (Luxembourg, Russia and Spain), diverse in geographical location, population size, income level and health-care systems and for which we had population-based data. Each model compared current (suboptimal) care vs target care (delivered in accordance with the structured headache services model). Epidemiological and economic data were drawn from studies conducted by the Global Campaign against Headache; data on efficacy of treatments were taken from published randomized controlled trials; assumptions on uptake of treatments, and those made for Healthy Life Year (HLY) calculations and target-care benefits, were agreed with experts. We made annual and 5-year cost estimates from health-care provider (main analyses) and societal (secondary analyses) perspectives (2020 figures, euros). Results The analytical models were successfully developed and applied to each country setting. Headache-related costs (including use of health-care resources and lost productivity) and health outcomes (HLYs) were mapped across populations. The same calculations were repeated for each alternative (current vs target care). Analyses of the differences in costs and health outcomes between alternatives and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios are presented elsewhere. Conclusions This study presents the first headache-type-specific analytical models to evaluate effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of implementing structured headache services in countries in the European Region. The models are robust, and can assist policy makers in allocating health budgets between interventions to maximize the health of populations