Identifying patients who require a change in their current acute migraine treatment: the Migraine Assessment of Current Therapy (Migraine-ACT) questionnaire

Readability analysis and concept mapping of PROMs used for headache disorders

OBJECTIVE

To assess the readability and the comprehensiveness of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) utilized in primary headache disorders literature.

BACKGROUND

As the health-care landscape has evolved toward a patient-centric model, numerous PROMs have been developed to capture treatment outcomes in patients with headache disorders. For these PROMs to advance our understanding of headache disorders and their treatment impact, they must be easy to understand (i.e., reading grade level 6 or less) and comprehensively capture what matters to patients with headache. The aim of this study was to (a) assess the readability of PROMs utilized in headache disorders literature, and (b) assess the comprehensiveness of PROMs by mapping their content to a health-related quality of life framework.

METHODS

In this scoping review, recently published systematic reviews were used to identify PROMs used in primary headache disorders literature. Readability analysis was performed at the level of individual items and full PROM using established readability metrics. The content of the PROMs was mapped against a health-related quality-of-life framework by two independent reviewers.

RESULTS

In total, 22 PROMs (15 headache disorders related, 7 generic) were included. The median reading grade level varied between 7.1 (interquartile range [IQR] 6.3-7.8) and 12.7 (IQR 11.8-13.2). None of the PROMs were below the recommended reading grade level for patient-facing material (grade 6). Three PROMs, the Migraine-Treatment Assessment Questionnaire, the Eurolight, and the European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions 3 Level Version, were between reading grade levels 7 and 8; the remaining 19 PROMs were above reading grade level 8. In total, the PROMs included 425 items. Most items (n = 134, 32%) assessed physical function (e.g., work, activities of daily living). The remaining items assessed physical symptoms (n = 127, 30%; e.g., pain, nausea), treatment effects on symptoms (n = 65, 15%; e.g., accompanying symptoms relief, headache relief), treatment impact (n = 56, 13%; e.g., function, side effects), psychological well-being (n = 41, 10%; e.g., anger, frustration), social well-being (n = 29, 7%; e.g., missing out on social activities, relationships), psychological impact (n = 14, 3%; e.g., feeling [not] in control, feeling like a burden), and sexual well-being (n = 3, 1%; e.g., sexual activity, sexual interest). Some of the items pertained to treatment (n = 27, 6%), of which most were about treatment type and use (n = 12, 3%; e.g., medication, botulinum toxin), treatment access (n = 10, 2%; e.g., health-care utilization, cost of medication), and treatment experience (n = 9, 2%; e.g., treatment satisfaction, confidence in treatment).

CONCLUSION

The PROMs used in studies of headache disorders may be challenging for some patients to understand, leading to inaccurate or missing data. Furthermore, no available PROM comprehensively measures the health-related quality-of-life impact of headache disorders or their treatment, resulting in a limited understanding of patient-reported outcomes. The development of an easy-to-understand, comprehensive, and validated headache disorders-specific PROM is warranted.

Mitochondrial migraine; a prevalence, impact and treatment efficacy cohort study

Mitochondrial respiratory chain dysfunction may be predisposing for the development of migraine, reflected in high migraine prevalence in patients with mitochondrial disease. Prevalence and impact of migraine in patients with proven mitochondrial disease and the current treatment efficacy were studied using online questionnaires. Patients were selected at the Internal Medicine Department. Headache was reported by 34 (55%) out of 62 patients. Migraine-criteria were met by 85% of them. Efficacy of migraine treatment was achieved in 4 patients. Given the high prevalence of migraine and current treatment insufficiency, migraine is a major threat of quality of life patients with mitochondrial disease.

Measuring the impact of migraine for evaluating outcomes of preventive treatments for migraine headaches

Background

Migraine is characterized by headache with symptoms such as intense pain, nausea, vomiting, photophobia, and phonophobia that significantly impact individuals’ lives. The objective of this study was to develop a strategy to measure outcomes from the patients’ perspectives for use in evaluating preventive treatments for migraine.

Methods

This study used a multi-stage process. The first stage included concept identification research through literature review, patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument content review, and clinician interviews, and resulted in a list of concepts relevant to understand the migraine experience. These results informed the design of the subsequent concept elicitation stage that involved qualitative interviews of adults with migraine to understand their experiences. Information from these two stages was used to develop a conceptual disease model (CDM) of the migraine experience. This CDM was used to identify concepts of interest (COI) to evaluate patient-relevant outcomes for assessing treatment benefit of migraine prophylactics. In the final stage, existing PRO instruments were reviewed to assess coverage of concepts related to the selected COI.

Results

Nine articles from 563 screened abstracts underwent full review to identify migraine-relevant concepts. This concept identification and subsequent concept elicitation interviews (N = 32; 21 episodic migraine; 11 chronic migraine) indicated that people with migraine experience difficulties during and between migraine attacks with considerable day-to-day variability in the impact on movement, ability to perform every day and social activities, and emotion. The CDM organized concepts as proximal to and more distal from disease-defining migraine symptoms, and was used to identify impact on physical function as the key COI. The item level review of PRO instruments revealed that none of the existing PRO instruments were suitable to collect data on impact of migraine on physical functioning, to evaluate treatment benefit.

Conclusions

The impact of migraine includes impairments in functioning during and between migraine attacks that vary considerably on a daily basis. There is a need for novel PRO instruments that reflect patients’ migraine experience to assess treatment benefit of migraine prophylactics. These instruments must evaluate the concepts identified and be able to capture the variability of patients’ experience.

The development of a simple questionnaire to screen patients with SLE for the presence of neuropsychiatric symptoms in routine clinical practice

Aim: The creation of a physician-administered questionnaire to screen patients with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) for the presence of symptoms suggestive of neuropsychiatric involvement (NPSLE).

Methods: The development of the questionnaire followed three phases. First, a list of manifestations was prepared based on the ACR case definitions for NPSLE. A first questionnaire was constructed including 119 items. To reduce their number, a Delphi analysis was carried out and a second questionnaire with 62 questions was developed. This questionnaire was administered to 139 patients with SLE (58 with NPSLE: 29 active, 29 inactive; and 81 without NPSLE: 39 active, 42 inactive). Questions relevant to the screening of patients were selected on the basis of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.

Results: Twenty-seven questions concerning central nervous system and psychiatric manifestations were found to be relevant; the remaining could be eliminated without significantly affecting AUC. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) was 0.69 (95% CI 0.61–0.78). A score above 17 was considered as suggestive of the presence of NPSLE with a sensitivity of 92.9% (95% CI 85.1–97.3 %) and specificity of 25.4% (95% CI 14.7–39.00 %).

Conclusions: This questionnaire could represent a ‘core set’ of questions that could help in clinical practice to identify patients with neuropsychiatric symptoms requiring further evaluation.

Efficacy and tolerability of rizatriptan for the treatment of acute migraine in sumatriptan non-responders

Objective: The study was carried out to assess the efficacy and tolerability of rizatriptan orally disintegrating tablet (ODT) for treating acute migraine in patients who are non-responders to sumatriptan.

Background: Many migraineurs report dissatisfaction with sumatriptan efficacy. It is unclear whether sumatriptan 100 mg non-responders will respond to other triptans.

Methods: This was a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study in adults with >1-year history of ICHD-II (International Classification of Headache Disorders, second edition) migraine who reported that they generally do not respond to sumatriptan (≥50% unsatisfactory response). In the baseline phase, participants treated a single moderate/severe migraine attack with open-label generic sumatriptan 100 mg. Those who continued to experience moderate/severe pain at two hours post-dose were eligible to enter the double-blind treatment phase, during which participants treated three migraine attacks in crossover fashion (two with rizatriptan 10-mg ODT, one with placebo) after being randomly assigned to one of three treatment sequences (1 : 1 : 1 ratio). The primary endpoint was two-hour pain relief.

Results: A total of 102 (94%) participants treated at least one study migraine. Pain relief at two hours was significantly greater with rizatriptan compared with placebo (51% vs. 20%, p < .001). Response rates also favored rizatriptan on two-hour pain freedom (22% vs. 12%, p = .013) as well as 24-hour sustained pain relief (38% vs. 14%, p < .001) and sustained pain freedom (20% vs. 11%, p = .036). Treatment was generally well tolerated.

Conclusion: Rizatriptan 10-mg ODT was superior to placebo at providing two-hour pain relief and two-hour pain freedom in the treatment of acute migraine in those who do not respond to sumatriptan 100 mg. Rizatriptan was generally well tolerated in this population.

Underdiagnosis and Undertreatment of Migraine in Italy: A Survey of Patients Attending for The First Time 10 Headache Centres

The aim of this study was to asses the clinical features, pattern of healthcare and drug utilization of migraine patients attending 10 Italian headache centres (HC). Migraine is underdiagnosed and undertreated everywhere throughout the world, despite its considerable burden. Migraine sufferers often deal with their problem alone using self-prescribing drugs, whereas triptans are used by a small proportion of patients. All patients attending for the first time 10 Italian HCs over a 3-month period were screened for migraine. Migraine patients underwent a structured direct interview about previous migraine diagnosis, comorbidity, headache treatments and their side-effects and healthcare utilization for migraine. Patient satisfaction with their usual therapy for the migraine attack was evaluated with the Migraine-Assessment of Current Therapy (ACT) questionnaire. The quality of life of migraine patients was assessed by mean of Short Form (SF)-12 and Migraine-Specific Quality of life (MSQ) version 2.1 questionnaires. Of the 2675 patients who attended HCs for the first time during the study period, 71% received a diagnosis of migraine and the first 953 subjects completed the study out of 1025 patients enrolled. Only 26.8% of migraine patients had a previous diagnosis of migraine; 62.4% of them visited their general practitioner (GP) in the last year, 38.2% saw a specialist for headache, 23% attended an Emergency Department and 4.5% were admitted to hospital for migraine; 82.8% of patients used non-specific drugs for migraine attacks, whereas 17.2% used triptans and only 4.8% used a preventive migraine medication. Triptans were used by 46.4% of patients with a previous diagnosis of migraine. About 80% of migraine patients took over-the-counter medications. The Migraine-ACT revealed that 60% of patients needed a change in their treatment of migraine attacks, 85% of whom took non-specific drugs. Both the MSQ version 2.1 and the SF-12 questionnaires indicated a poor quality of life of most patients. Migraine represents the prevalent headache diagnosis in Italian HCs. Migraine is still underdiagnosed in Italy and migraine patients receive a suboptimal medical approach in our country, despite the healthcare utilization of migraine subjects being noteworthy. A cooperative network involving GPs, neurologists and headache specialists is strongly desirable in order to improve long-term migraine management in Italy.

Quality of care measures for migraine: a comprehensive review

Migraine headache is a highly prevalent, chronic, episodic disorder that is associated with high direct and indirect costs. Migraine headache impacts not only patients, but also their employers due to substantial decreases in workplace productivity. Despite the prevalence and clinical and economic burdens of migraine, no national efforts to develop and implement standardized measures of quality of care have been made. The objective of this study was to collect and report on existing quality of care measures for migraine that could be suitable for quality measurement at the health-plan level. Published literature, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's National Quality Measure Clearinghouse, and resources available from quality organizations (eg, the National Committee for Quality Assurance) were examined to identify existing quality indicators that can be used to assess the quality of care delivered to migraine sufferers at the health-plan level. Among the results of the study were the following: Quality of care measures for migraine include patient-reported measures and non-patient reported, diagnosis-related, prevention-related, and treatment-related indicators. Most existing measures have been developed by the Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement or summarized and reported by the RAND Corporation. Few of these measures can be used to assess migraine quality of care at the health-plan level. In conclusion, many measures exist, but they are not intended for use at the health-plan level. Incorporation of valid and reliable quality of care measures may increase the ability of migraine disease management programs to conform to clinical care guidelines. Significant effort is needed to determine what and how to measure quality among health plans to improve the quality of care delivered to individuals with migraine.