Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy: How Medical Providers Can Increase Patient and Family Openness and Access to Evidence-Based Multimodal Therapy for Pediatric Migraine

Pediatric Chronic Orofacial Pain: A Narrative Review of Biopsychosocial Associations and Treatment Approaches

Pediatric chronic orofacial pain (OFP) is an umbrella term which refers to pain associated with the hard and soft tissues of the head, face, and neck lasting >3 months in patients younger than 18 years of age. Common chronic pediatric OFP diagnoses include temporomandibular disorder, headaches, and neuropathic pain. Chronic OFP can adversely affect youth's daily functioning and development in many areas of well-being, and may be associated with emotional stress, depression, functional avoidance, and poor sleep, among other negative outcomes. In this mini-review, we will discuss common psychological comorbidities and familial factors that often accompany chronic pediatric OFP conditions. We will also discuss traditional management approaches for pediatric orofacial pain including education, occlusal appliances, and psychological treatments such as relaxation, mindfulness-based interventions, and cognitive-behavioral treatments. Finally, we highlight avenues for future research, as a better understanding of chronic OFP comorbidities in childhood has the potential to prevent long-term pain-related disability in adulthood.

Psychological Interventions for Pediatric Headache Disorders: A 2021 Update on Research Progress and Needs

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review summarizes key findings from recent investigations of psychological interventions for pediatric headache disorders and discusses important avenues for future research.

RECENT FINDINGS

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) is effective in reducing headache days among youth with chronic headache. There is mixed evidence for the benefit of CBT on reducing disability associated with migraine, suggesting that there is room to optimize CBT by leveraging complementary or alternative psychological interventions, such as Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) and mindfulness-based approaches. Tailoring CBT may be especially important for youth with more impairing or complex clinical presentations, such as those with continuous headache. Using eHealth and novel study designs to expand access to and dissemination of psychological interventions is promising. Although CBT is the gold standard psychological treatment for youth with migraine, we are only beginning to understand how and why it is effective. Other promising psychological treatments are available, and studies are beginning to examine how CBT can be optimized to fit the unique needs of each patient. Improving access and equitability of care for youth with migraine will require tailoring psychological treatments for patients with varying headache presentations and youth from a variety of cultural, racial, ethnic, and linguistic backgrounds.

The use of virtual complementary and integrative therapies by neurology outpatients: An exploratory analysis of two cross-sectional studies assessing the use of technology as treatment in an academic neurology department in New York City

Background

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, about half of patients from populations that sought care in neurology tried complementary and integrative therapies (CITs). With the increased utilization of telehealth services, we sought to determine whether patients also increased their use of virtual CITs.

Methods

We examined datasets from two separate cross-sectional surveys that included cohorts of patients with neurological disorders. One was a dataset from a study that examined patient and provider experiences with teleneurology visits; the other was a study that assessed patients with a history of COVID-19 infection who presented for neurologic evaluation. We assessed and reported the use of virtual (and non-virtual) CITs using descriptive statistics, and determined whether there were clinical characteristics that predicted the use of CITs using logistic regression analyses.

Findings

Patients who postponed medical treatment for non-COVID-19-related problems during the pandemic were more likely to seek CITs. Virtual exercise, virtual psychotherapy, and relaxation/meditation smartphone applications were the most frequent types of virtual CITs chosen by patients. In both studies, age was a key demographic factor associated with mobile/virtual CIT usage.

Interpretations

Our investigation demonstrates that virtual CIT-related technologies were utilized in the treatment of neurologic conditions during the pandemic, particularly by those patients who deferred non-COVID-related care.

Underuse of Behavioral Treatments for Headache: a Narrative Review Examining Societal and Cultural Factors

Migraine affects over 40 million Americans and is the world's second most disabling condition. As the majority of medical care for migraine occurs in primary care settings, not in neurology nor headache subspecialty practices, healthcare system interventions should focus on primary care. Though there is grade A evidence for behavioral treatment (e.g., biofeedback, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), and relaxation techniques) for migraine, these treatments are underutilized. Behavioral treatments may be a valuable alternative to opioids, which remain widely used for migraine, despite the US opioid epidemic and guidelines that recommend against them. Identifying and removing barriers to the use of headache behavioral therapy could help reduce the disability as well as the personal and social costs of migraine. These techniques will have their greatest impact if offered in primary care settings to the lower socioeconomic status groups at greatest risk for migraine. We review the societal and cultural challenges that impose barriers to optimal use of non-pharmacological treatment services. These barriers include insufficient knowledge of migraine/headache behavioral treatments and insufficient availability of clinicians trained in non-pharmacological treatment delivery; limited access in underserved communities; financial burden; and stigma associated with both headache and mental health diagnoses and treatment. For each barrier, we discuss potential approaches to minimizing its effect and thus enhancing non-pharmacological treatment utilization.Case ExampleA 25-year-old graduate student with a prior history of headaches in college is attending school in the evenings while working a full-time job. Now, his headaches have significant nausea and photophobia. They are twice weekly and are disabling enough that he is unable to complete homework assignments. He does not understand why the headaches occur on Saturdays when he pushes through all week to get through his examinations that take place on Friday evenings. He tried two different migraine preventive medications, but neither led to the 50% reduction in headache days his doctor had hoped for. His doctor had suggested cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) before initiating the medications, but he had been too busy to attend the appointments, and the challenges in finding an in-network provider proved difficult. Now with the worsening headaches, he opted for the CBT and by the fifth week had already noted improvements in his headache frequency and intensity.

Neuroscience Education as Therapy for Migraine and Overlapping Pain Conditions: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Neuroscience Education Therapy (NET) has been successfully used for numerous overlapping pain conditions, but few studies have investigated NET for migraine.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to (1) review the literature on NET used for the treatment of various pain conditions to assess how NET has been studied thus far and (2) recommend considerations for future research of NET for the treatment of migraine.

DESIGN/METHODS

Following the PRISMA guideline for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) Co-author (TR), a Medical Librarian, searched the MEDLINE, PsychInfo, Embase & Cochrane Central Clinical Trials Registry databases for peer-reviewed articles describing NET to treat migraine and other chronic pain conditions. Each citation was reviewed by two trained independent reviewers. Conflicts were resolved through consensus.

RESULTS

Overall, a NET curriculum consists of the following topics: pain does not equate to injury, pain is generated in the brain, perception, genetics, reward systems, fear, brain plasticity, and placebo/nocebo effects. Delivered through individual, group, or a combination of individual and group sessions, NET treatments often incorporate exercise programs and/or components of other evidence-based behavioral treatments. NET has significantly reduced catastrophizing, kinesiophobia, pain intensity, and disability in overlapping pain conditions. In migraine-specific studies, when implemented together with traditional pharmacological treatments, NET has emerged as a promising therapy by reducing migraine days, pain intensity and duration, and acute medication intake.

CONCLUSION

NET is an established treatment for pain conditions, and future research should focus on refining NET for migraine, examining delivery modality, dosage, components of other behavioral therapies to integrate, and migraine-specific NET curricula.

Prevalence of Headache Days and Disability 3 Years After Participation in the Childhood and Adolescent Migraine Prevention Medication Trial

IMPORTANCE

Migraine is a common neurological disease that often begins in childhood and continues into adulthood; approximately 6 million children and adolescents in the United States cope with migraine, and many frequently experience significant disability and multiple headache days per week. Although pharmacological preventive treatments have been shown to offer some benefit to youth with migraine, additional research is needed to understand whether and how these benefits are sustained.

OBJECTIVE

To survey clinical status of youth with migraine who participated in the 24-week Childhood and Adolescent Migraine Prevention (CHAMP) trial over a 3-year follow-up period.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This survey study used internet-based surveys collected from youth ages 8 to 17 years at 3, 6, 12, 18, 24, and 36 months after completion of the CHAMP trial, which randomized participants to amitriptyline, topiramate, or placebo. At the end of the trial, the study drug was stopped, and participants received clinical care of their choice thereafter. The CHAMP trial was conducted between May 2012 and November 2015, and survey follow-up was conducted June 2013 to June 2018. Participants in this survey study were representative of those randomized in the trial. Data were analyzed from March 2020 to April 2021.

EXPOSURES

Survey completion.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Headache days, disability (assessed using the Pediatric Migraine Disability Scale [PedMIDAS]), and self-report of ongoing use of prescription preventive medication.

RESULTS

A total of 205 youth (mean [SD] age, 14.2 [2.3] years; 139 [68%] girls; mean [SD] history of migraine, 5.7 [3.1] years) participated in the survey. Retention of participants was 189 participants (92%) at month 6, 182 participants (88%) at month 12, 163 participants (80%) at month 18, 165 participants (80%) at month 24, and 155 participants (76%) at month 36. Over the course of the 3-year follow-up, participants consistently maintained meaningful reductions in headache days (mean [SD] headache days per 28 days: CHAMP baseline, 11.1 [6.0] days; CHAMP completion, 5.0 [5.7] days; 3-year follow-up, 6.1 [6.1] days) and disability (mean [SD] score: CHAMP baseline, 40.9 [26.4]; CHAMP completion, 17.9 [22.1]; 3-year follow-up, 12.3 [20.0]). At 3 years after completion of the CHAMP trial, headache days were approximately 1.5 per week (changed from about 3 per week at trial baseline) and disability had improved from the moderate range to the low mild range on the PedMIDAS. Longitudinal analyses showed that amitriptyline and topiramate did not explain intercept random effects for either mean rate of headache days per week (amitriptyline: estimate [SE], 0.07 [0.05]; P = .16; topiramate: estimate [SE], 0.04 [0.05]; P = .50) or headache disability PedMIDAS total score (amitriptyline: estimate [SE], 0.25 [0.38]; P = .52; topiramate: estimate [SE], -0.09 [0.39]; P = .82) changes over time. Of 153 participants who reported on prescription drug use at 3 years, only 1 participant (1%) reported using prevention medication, and most participants reported no medication use at most time points.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that children and adolescents with longer than 5 years history of migraine who participated in the CHAMP trial may sustain positive clinical outcomes over time, even after discontinuing preventive pill-based treatment. This survey study could inform use and discontinuation timing of pharmacological preventive therapies for migraine in youth ages 8 to 17 years. Research is needed to examine mechanisms of treatment improvement and maintenance for preventive therapies, as well as placebo, in the pediatric population.

Heartrate variability biofeedback for migraine using a smartphone application and sensor: A randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Although hand temperature and electromyograph biofeedback have evidence for migraine prevention, to date, no study has evaluated heartrate variability (HRV) biofeedback for migraine.

METHODS

2-arm randomized trial comparing an 8-week app-based HRV biofeedback (HeartMath) to waitlist control. Feasibility/acceptability outcomes included number and duration of sessions, satisfaction, barriers and adverse events. Primary clinical outcome was Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (MSQv2).

RESULTS

There were 52 participants (26/arm). On average, participants randomized to the Hearthmath group completed 29 sessions (SD = 29, range: 2-86) with an average length of 6:43 min over 36 days (SD = 27, range: 0, 88) before discontinuing. 9/29 reported technology barriers. 43% said that they were likely to recommend Heartmath to others. Average MSQv2 decreases were not significant between the Heartmath and waitlist control (estimate = 0.3, 95% CI = -3.1 - 3.6). High users of Heartmath reported a reduction in MSQv2 at day 30 (-12.3 points, p = 0.010) while low users did not (p = 0.765).

DISCUSSION

App-based HRV biofeedback was feasible and acceptable on a time-limited basis for people with migraine. Changes in the primary clinical outcome did not differ between biofeedback and control; however, high users of the app reported more benefit than low users.

Burden of Illness Among People with Migraine and ≥ 4 Monthly Headache Days While Using Acute and/or Preventive Prescription Medications for Migraine

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a chronic disease that reduces health-related quality of life. Little is known about the burden of migraine in individuals who are potential candidates for preventive treatment with ≥ 4 monthly headache days currently using migraine medications.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the burden of migraine among patients reporting ≥ 4 monthly headache days while taking acute and/or preventive migraine medications.

METHODS

In this retrospective, cross-sectional study, data from the 2016 U.S. National Health and Wellness Survey (N = 97,503) compared the burden of migraine among individuals self-reporting a diagnosis of migraine by a health care professional and ≥ 4 monthly headache days while using acute and/or preventive prescription migraine medications to matched nonmigraine controls. Propensity score matching across different variables (e.g., age, gender, and body mass index) was used to identify matched controls from respondents who did not self-report a diagnosis of migraine. Migraine-associated burden was measured by impairment in work productivity and daily activities (Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire), all-cause health care resource utilization (HRU), and all-cause direct and indirect costs.

RESULTS

This analysis included 197 treated migraine patients with ≥ 4 monthly headache days and 197 matched nonmigraine controls. Greater proportions of treated migraine patients reported comorbid depression (58.4% vs. 27.9%, P < 0.001) or generalized anxiety disorder (15.2% vs. 8.6%, P = 0.043) and were on long-term disability (13.7% vs. 5.6%, P = 0.003). Absenteeism (11.8% vs. 6.3%, P = 0.030); presenteeism (36.0% vs. 17.5%, P < 0.001); overall work impairment (41.0% vs. 20.9%, P < 0.001); and activity impairment (45.4% vs. 25.4%, P < 0.001) were greater in treated migraine patients versus nonmigraine controls. Treated migraine patients had higher all-cause HRU and higher all-cause direct ($24,499.90 vs. $15,318.91, P = 0.013) and indirect ($14,770.57 vs. $5,764.93, P < 0.001) costs than nonmigraine controls.

CONCLUSIONS

Treated migraine patients with ≥ 4 monthly headache days reported significantly reduced work productivity and increased all-cause HRU and cost despite migraine treatment compared with nonmigraine controls. These findings highlight unmet needs in the treatment and management of migraine.

DISCLOSURES

This study was funded by Teva Pharmaceutical Industries (Petach Tikva, Israel). Cohen is an employee of Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D (USA); Bell was an employee of Teva Pharmaceutical Industries at the time of this study and holds stock/stock options in Teva Pharmaceutical Industries. Lee is an employee of Kantar, which received funding from Teva Pharmaceutical Industries for data analyses performed for this study. Buse has served as a paid consultant to Amgen/Novartis, Allergan, Biohaven, Eli Lilly, Promius/Dr. Reddy's, and Teva Pharmaceuticals, but she was not compensated financially for work on this study. Yugrakh has received research support from Teva Pharmaceuticals and Cefaly Technology. Lipton has received research support from the NIH, the Migraine Research Foundation, and the National Headache Foundation; holds stock options in eNeura Therapeutics and Biohaven Holdings; serves as consultant, advisory board member, or has received honoraria from the American Academy of Neurology, Alder, Allergan, the American Headache Society, Amgen, Autonomic Technologies, Avanir, Biohaven, BioVision, Boston Scientific, Dr. Reddy's, electroCore, Eli Lilly, eNeura Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Pernix, Pfizer, Supernus, Teva, Trigemina, Vector, and Vedanta. This study was presented as a poster at the American Academy of Neurology 2018 Annual Meeting, April 21-27, 2018, in Los Angeles, CA; PAINWeek 2018, September 4-8, 2018, in Las Vegas, NV; and the 2017 European Headache Federation (EHF) Congress, December 1-3, 2017, in Rome, Italy.

Efficacy and Feasibility of Behavioral Treatments for Migraine, Headache, and Pain in the Acute Care Setting

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This narrative review examines the use of behavioral interventions for acute treatment of headache and pain in the emergency department (ED)/urgent care (UC) and inpatient settings.

RECENT FINDINGS

Behavioral interventions demonstrate reductions of pain and associated disability in headache, migraine, and other conditions in the outpatient setting. Behavioral treatments may be a useful addition for patients presenting with acute pain to hospitals and emergency departments. We review challenges and limitations and offer suggestions for implementation of behavioral interventions in the acute setting. Some evidence exists for relaxation-based treatments, mindfulness-based treatments, hypnosis/self-hypnosis, and immersive virtual reality for acute pain, migraine, and headache. There are few high-quality studies on behavioral treatments in the inpatient and emergency department settings. Further research is warranted to determine the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of these interventions. Given the general safety and cost-effectiveness of behavioral interventions, healthcare professionals may want to include these therapies in treatment plans.

Smartphone based behavioral therapy for pain in multiple sclerosis (MS) patients: A feasibility acceptability randomized controlled study for the treatment of comorbid migraine and ms pain

BACKGROUND

Multiple Sclerosis (MS) and Migraine are comorbid neurologic conditions. Migraine prevalence is three times higher in the MS clinic population compared to the general population, and patients with MS and migraine are more symptomatic than patients with MS without migraine.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to conduct a pilot feasibility and acceptability study of the RELAXaHEAD app in MS-Migraine patients and to assess whether there was any change in migraine disability and MS pain-related disability.

METHODS

Randomized controlled study of patients with MS-migraine ages 18-80 years with 4+ headache days/ month who were willing to engage in smartphone based behavioral therapy. Half received the RELAXaHEAD app with progressive muscle relaxation (PMR) and the other half received the app without the PMR. Data was collected for 90 days on measures of recruitment, retention, engagement, and adherence to RELAXaHEAD. Preliminary data was also collected on migraine disability (MIDAS) and MS pain (PES).

RESULTS

Sixty-two subjects with MS-migraine were enrolled in the study (34 in PMR arm, 28 in monitored usual care arm). On average, during the 90 days, participants played the PMR on average 1.8 times per week, and for 12.9 min on days it was played. Forty-one percent (14/34) of the participants played the PMR two or more times weekly on average. Data was entered into the daily diaries, on average, 49% (44/90) of the days. There were major challenges in reaching subjects in follow-up for the efficacy data, and there was no significant change in migraine disability (MIDAS) scores or MS Pain (PES) scores from baseline to the endpoints. During the six-month follow-up, most patients felt either positively or neutral about the relaxation therapy.

CONCLUSION

There was interest in scalable accessible forms of behavioral therapy to treat migraine and MS-related pain in patients with MS and comorbid migraine. Similar to prior studies, a significant minority were willing to practice the PMR at least twice weekly. In the societal shift from telephone to more text and internet-based interactions, follow up was challenging, but those reached indicated that they appreciated the PMR and would recommend it to others. Future work should focus on engagement and efficacy.

Focus group findings on the migraine patient experience during research studies and ideas for future investigations

OBJECTIVES

We conducted focus groups in people who had participated in mobile health (mHealth) studies of behavioral interventions for migraine to better understand: (a) Participant experience in the recruitment/enrollment process; (b) participant experience during the studies themselves; (c) ideas for improving participant experience for future studies.

METHODS

We conducted four focus groups in people who had agreed to participate in one of three studies involving mHealth and behavioral therapy for migraine. Inclusion criteria were being age 18-80, owning a smartphone, and having four or more headache days per month. All participants met the International Classification of Headache Disorders third edition beta version criteria for migraine. Exclusion criteria were not speaking English and having had behavioral therapy for migraine in the past year. Focus groups were audio recorded, fully transcribed and coded using general thematic analysis.

RESULTS

The 12 focus group participants had a mean age of 45 ± 15, a mean age of headache onset of 21 ± 13 and mean MIDAS disability score was 39 ± 56. Participants were women (100%), white (50%), Asian (33.3%) or members of other racial groups (16.7%). Certain themes emerged from each topic area. With regard to recruitment/enrollment (a), key themes were: (i) Participants joined their study out of an interest in research and/or a desire to try a new migraine treatment modality (behavioral therapy). (ii) Enrollment should be simple and study requirements should be carefully explained prior to enrollment. When asked about their experiences during the studies (b), the following themes emerged: (i) It is difficult to participate in study follow-up and compliance phone calls; (ii) participants prefer to choose from among various options for contact with the study team; (iii) there are barriers that limit app use related to migraine itself, as well as other barriers; (iv) completing diaries on a daily basis is challenging; (v) technical difficulties and uncertainties about app features limit use; (vi) being part of a research study promoted daily behavioral therapy use; (vii) progressive muscle relaxation (PMR) is enjoyable, and has a positive impact on life; (viii) behavioral therapy was a preferred treatment to reduce migraine pain. Ideas for improving study design or patient experience (c) included: (i) Increased opportunity to interact with other people with migraine would be beneficial; (ii) navigating the app and data entry should be easier; (iii) more varied methods for viewing the data and measures of adherence are needed; (iv) more information on and more varied behavioral treatment modalities would be preferred.

CONCLUSION

Though people with migraine are motivated to participate in mHealth and behavioral treatment studies, better communication up front about interventions as well as greater flexibility in interventions and follow-up methods are desired.

Message Framing and the Willingness to Pursue Behavioral Therapy: A Study of People With Migraine

OBJECTIVE

Behavioral treatments for migraine prevention are safe and effective but underutilized in migraine management. Health message framing may be helpful in guiding patients with treatment decision making. The authors assessed associations between message framing and the willingness to seek migraine behavioral treatment among persons with a diagnosis of migraine headache.

METHODS

A total of 401 individuals (median age=34 years [interquartile range, 12 years]) who screened positive for migraine, as determined by the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention questionnaire, were assessed. Participants were randomly assigned to receive one of four message frames using TurkPrime: specific loss framing (N=101), specific gain framing (N=98), nonspecific loss framing (N=102), and nonspecific gain framing (N=100). The message frames were initially piloted for 56 participants and then revised by a headache specialist, with input from a communications specialist, and randomly distributed to the larger sample.

RESULTS

More than two-thirds of participants (70.3%) were women. The median number of headache days per month was 5 (interquartile range, 5.3). Some of the participants (12.5%) had previously used evidence-based behavioral therapy for migraine. No significant differences in the willingness to pursue behavioral treatment for migraine between the four message framing groups were found. The median for all four types of message frames was 4 (interquartile range, 1; Kruskal-Wallis H, p=0.41).

CONCLUSIONS

Findings revealed that message framing was not associated with willingness to seek behavioral therapy for migraine.

Functional Impairment Predicts Outcome of Youth With Headache in the Emergency Department

Headache is a common presenting complaint in emergency departments (EDs), with the goal of improving acute pain. However, youth with chronic headaches may demonstrate broad functional impairment in their lives due to headaches. Our objective was to determine if degree of functional impairment predicts ED course for patients with headache as part of a clinical protocol. One hundred and thirty-seven pediatric patients presenting to an ED with headache were included. Patients and parents were administered the Functional Disability Index (FDI) and ED charts were reviewed to evaluate outcomes. Higher child-reported FDI scores were associated with more medications, longer ED stay, and admission. High parent-proxy FDI score was associated with longer ED stay. Both pain score and parent-proxy FDI score were associated with imaging. The FDI was a more useful predictor of visit resources than pain score. FDI scores could be used to help anticipate patients who may require greater time and resources.

Complementary and Integrative Health Treatments for Migraine

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a chronic disabling neurologic condition that can be treated with a combination of both pharmacologic and complementary and integrative health options.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

With the growing interest in the US population in the use of nonpharmacologic treatments, we reviewed the evidence for supplements and behavioral interventions used for migraine prevention.

RESULTS

Supplements reviewed included vitamins, minerals, and certain herbal preparations. Behavioral interventions reviewed included cognitive behavioral therapy, biofeedback, relaxation, the third-wave therapies, acupuncture, hypnosis, and aerobic exercise.

CONCLUSIONS

This article should provide an appreciation for the wide range of nonpharmacologic therapies that might be offered to patients in place of or in addition to migraine-preventive medications.

Practice guideline update summary: Pharmacologic treatment for pediatric migraine prevention: Report of the Guideline Development, Dissemination, and Implementation Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and the American Headache Society

OBJECTIVE

To provide updated evidence-based recommendations for migraine prevention using pharmacologic treatment with or without cognitive behavioral therapy in the pediatric population.

METHODS

The authors systematically reviewed literature from January 2003 to August 2017 and developed practice recommendations using the American Academy of Neurology 2011 process, as amended.

RESULTS

Fifteen Class I-III studies on migraine prevention in children and adolescents met inclusion criteria. There is insufficient evidence to determine if children and adolescents receiving divalproex, onabotulinumtoxinA, amitriptyline, nimodipine, or flunarizine are more or less likely than those receiving placebo to have a reduction in headache frequency. Children with migraine receiving propranolol are possibly more likely than those receiving placebo to have an at least 50% reduction in headache frequency. Children and adolescents receiving topiramate and cinnarizine are probably more likely than those receiving placebo to have a decrease in headache frequency. Children with migraine receiving amitriptyline plus cognitive behavioral therapy are more likely than those receiving amitriptyline plus headache education to have a reduction in headache frequency.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The majority of randomized controlled trials studying the efficacy of preventive medications for pediatric migraine fail to demonstrate superiority to placebo. Recommendations for the prevention of migraine in children include counseling on lifestyle and behavioral factors that influence headache frequency and assessment and management of comorbid disorders associated with headache persistence. Clinicians should engage in shared decision-making with patients and caregivers regarding the use of preventive treatments for migraine, including discussion of the limitations in the evidence to support pharmacologic treatments.

Factors Related to Migraine Patients' Decisions to Initiate Behavioral Migraine Treatment Following a Headache Specialist's Recommendation: A Prospective Observational Study

Objective

To evaluate the frequency with which migraine patients initiated behavioral migraine treatment following a headache specialist recommendation and the predictors for initiating behavioral migraine treatment.

Methods

We conducted a prospective cohort study of consecutive patients diagnosed with migraine to examine whether the patients initiated behavioral migraine treatment following a provider recommendation. The primary outcome was scheduling the initial visit for behavioral migraine treatment. Patients who initiated behavioral migraine treatment were compared with those who did not (demographics, migraine characteristics, and locus of control) with analysis of variance and chi-square tests.

Results

Of the 234 eligible patients, 69 (29.5%) were referred for behavioral treatment. Fifty-three (76.8%) patients referred for behavioral treatment were reached by phone. The mean duration from time of referral to follow-up was 76  (median 76, SD = 45) days. Thirty (56.6%) patients initiated behavioral migraine treatment. There was no difference in initiation of behavioral migraine treatment with regard to sex, age, age of diagnosis, years suffered with headaches, health care utilization visits, Migraine Disability Assessment Screen, and locus of control (P > 0.05). Patients who had previously seen a psychologist for migraine were more likely to initiate behavioral migraine treatment than patients who had not. Time constraints were the most common barrier cited for not initiating behavioral migraine treatment.

Conclusions

Less than one-third of eligible patients were referred for behavioral treatment, and only about half initiated behavioral migraine treatment. Future research should further assess patients' decisions regarding behavioral treatment initiation and methods for behavioral treatment delivery to overcome barriers to initiating behavioral migraine treatment.

Hybrid Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy Intervention for Adolescents With Co-Occurring Migraine and Insomnia: A Single-Arm Pilot Trial

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate feasibility and acceptability of a hybrid cognitive-behavioral therapy intervention for adolescents with co-occurring migraine and insomnia.

BACKGROUND

Many youth with chronic migraine have co-occurring insomnia. Little research has been conducted to evaluate behavioral treatments for insomnia in youth with migraine.

DESIGN AND METHODS

We conducted a single-arm pilot trial to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of delivering cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia to 21 youth (mean age 15.5, standard deviation 1.6) with co-occurring chronic migraine and insomnia. Adolescents completed up to 6 individual treatment sessions over 6 to 12 weeks, and 1 booster session 1 month later. Assessments included a prospective 7-day headache and sleep diary, and self-report measures of insomnia, sleep quality, sleep habits, and activity limitations at pre-treatment, immediate post-treatment, and 3-month follow-up.

RESULTS

Adolescents demonstrated good treatment adherence and families rated the intervention as highly acceptable. Preliminary analyses indicated improvements from pre-treatment to post-treatment in primary outcomes of headache days (M = 4.7, SD = 2.1 vs M = 2.8, SD = 2.7) and insomnia symptoms (M = 16.9, SD = 5.2 vs M = 9.5, SD = 6.2), which were maintained at 3-month follow-up (M = 2.7, SD = 2.8; M = 9.3, SD = 5.0, respectively). We also found improvements in secondary outcomes of pain-related activity limitations as well as sleep quality, sleep hygiene, and sleep patterns.

CONCLUSIONS

These preliminary data indicate that hybrid cognitive-behavioral therapy is feasible and acceptable for youth with co-occurring chronic migraine and insomnia. Future randomized controlled trials are needed to test treatment efficacy on migraine, sleep, and functional outcomes. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03137147.

Pediatric and Adolescent Headache

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article provides the practicing neurologist with a comprehensive, evidence-based approach to the diagnosis and management of headache in children and adolescents, with a focus on migraine.

RECENT FINDINGS

Four triptans are now labeled by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for acute migraine treatment in adolescents, and rizatriptan is labeled for use in children age 6 and older. For preventive migraine treatment, the Childhood and Adolescent Migraine Prevention trial demonstrated that approximately 60% of children and adolescents with migraine will improve with a three-pronged treatment approach that includes: (1) lifestyle management counseling (on sleep, exercise, hydration, caffeine, and avoidance of meal skipping); (2) optimally dosed acute therapy, specifically nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and triptans; and (3) a preventive treatment that has some evidence for efficacy. For the remaining 40% of children and adolescents, and for those who would not have qualified for the Childhood and Adolescent Migraine Prevention trial because of having continuous headache or medication-overuse headache, the clinician's judgment remains the best guide to preventive therapy selection.

SUMMARY

Randomized placebo-controlled trials have been conducted to guide first-line acute and preventive migraine treatments in children and adolescents. Future research is needed to guide treatment for those with more refractory migraine, as well as for children and adolescents who have other primary headache disorders.

Screening Family and Psychosocial Risk in Pediatric Migraine and Tension-Type Headache: Validation of the Psychosocial Assessment Tool (PAT)

OBJECTIVE

To present data on psychometric properties of the Psychosocial Assessment Tool 2.0_General (PAT), a brief screener for psychosocial risk in families of youth with medical conditions, in youth with headache.

BACKGROUND

Emotional and behavioral disturbances, parent distress, and poor family functioning are common among youth with recurrent migraine and tension-type headache; however, tools to comprehensively screen family and psychosocial risk in youth with headache are not currently available. The PAT could address an important gap by facilitating identification of psychosocial treatment needs among youth with headache.

DESIGN AND METHODS

Youth with recurrent migraine (with and without aura; chronic migraine) or tension-type headache (episodic and chronic) completed the PAT and validated measures of adolescent emotional and behavioral functioning, parent emotional functioning, and family functioning at baseline (n = 239; 157 from neurology clinic, 82 from the community) and 6-month follow-up (n = 221; 146 from neurology clinic, 75 from the community).

RESULTS

Internal consistency for the PAT Total score was strong (α = .88). At baseline, the PAT Total score was significantly associated in the expected direction with established measures of child emotional and behavioral functioning (r = .62), parent anxiety and depressive symptoms (r = .49; r = .53, respectively), and family functioning (r = .21). Predictive validity was demonstrated by a significant association between PAT Total scores at baseline with child emotional and behavioral functioning (r = .64), parent anxiety (r = .37), parent depression (r = .42), and family functioning (r = .26) at 6-month follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The PAT is a promising tool for screening psychosocial risk that could facilitate identification of psychosocial treatment needs among youth with recurrent headache at risk for poor outcomes.

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Pediatric Headache and Migraine: Why to Prescribe and What New Research Is Critical for Advancing Integrated Biobehavioral Care

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To highlight current evidence supporting the prescription of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) as part of first-line preventive treatment for children and adolescents with headache and discuss a research strategy aimed at: (1) understanding how and why CBT works, and (2) developing effective and efficient approaches for integrating CBT into headache specialty, neurology, and primary care settings.

RECENT FINDINGS

Although preventive medications for pediatric headache and migraine are commonly prescribed, recent meta-analyses and an NIH-funded, multi-center clinical trial suggests that the effect of pill-taking therapies may be mostly due to a placebo effect. These findings have led to greater consideration of prescription of non-pharmacological therapies as first-line interventions (either alone or in combination with pill-based therapy). A literature that extends back to the 1980s and includes recent clinical trials and meta-analyses demonstrates that CBT decreases headache frequency and related disability in youth with headache and migraine and has a favorable benefit to risk profile with almost no negative side effects.

SUMMARY

CBT has been repeatedly demonstrated as effective in treating pediatric headache and migraine. As such, it should be considered as part of first-line preventive treatment for pediatric headache (either alone or in combination with a pill-based therapy). We need to better understand how this therapy works and what makes it distinct (if anything) from the placebo effect. What we need to achieve is empirical support for efficient access to this evidence-based treatment and clarity on how to match the intensity of non-pharmacological intervention to the needs of our patients at the time they present for care.

Psychological therapies for the management of chronic and recurrent pain in children and adolescents

BACKGROUND

This is an update of the original Cochrane review first published in Issue 1, 2003, and previously updated in 2009, 2012 and 2014. Chronic pain, defined as pain that recurs or persists for more than three months, is common in childhood. Chronic pain can affect nearly every aspect of daily life and is associated with disability, anxiety, and depressive symptoms.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to update the published evidence on the efficacy of psychological treatments for chronic and recurrent pain in children and adolescents.The primary objective of this updated review was to determine any effect of psychological therapy on the clinical outcomes of pain intensity and disability for chronic and recurrent pain in children and adolescents compared with active treatment, waiting-list, or treatment-as-usual care.The secondary objective was to examine the impact of psychological therapies on children's depressive symptoms and anxiety symptoms, and determine adverse events.

SEARCH METHODS

Searches were undertaken of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, MEDLINE in Process, Embase, and PsycINFO databases. We searched for further RCTs in the references of all identified studies, meta-analyses, and reviews, and trial registry databases. The most recent search was conducted in May 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs with at least 10 participants in each arm post-treatment comparing psychological therapies with active treatment, treatment-as-usual, or waiting-list control for children or adolescents with recurrent or chronic pain were eligible for inclusion. We excluded trials conducted remotely via the Internet.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We analysed included studies and we assessed quality of outcomes. We combined all treatments into one class named 'psychological treatments'. We separated the trials by the number of participants that were included in each arm; trials with > 20 participants per arm versus trials with < 20 participants per arm. We split pain conditions into headache and mixed chronic pain conditions. We assessed the impact of both conditions on four outcomes: pain, disability, depression, and anxiety. We extracted data at two time points; post-treatment (immediately or the earliest data available following end of treatment) and at follow-up (between three and 12 months post-treatment).

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 10 new studies (an additional 869 participants) in the updated search. The review thus included a total of 47 studies, with 2884 children and adolescents completing treatment (mean age 12.65 years, SD 2.21 years). Twenty-three studies addressed treatments for headache (including migraine); 10 for abdominal pain; two studies treated participants with either a primary diagnosis of abdominal pain or irritable bowel syndrome, two studies treated adolescents with fibromyalgia, two studies included adolescents with temporomandibular disorders, three were for the treatment of pain associated with sickle cell disease, and two studies treated adolescents with inflammatory bowel disease. Finally, three studies included adolescents with mixed pain conditions. Overall, we judged the included studies to be at unclear or high risk of bias.Children with headache painWe found that psychological therapies reduced pain frequency post-treatment for children and adolescents with headaches (risk ratio (RR) 2.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.67 to 3.30, P < 0.01, number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 2.86), but these effects were not maintained at follow-up. We did not find a beneficial effect of psychological therapies on reducing disability in young people post-treatment (SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.56 to 0.03), but we did find a beneficial effect in a small number of studies at follow-up (SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.54 to -0.15). We found no beneficial effect of psychological interventions on depression or anxiety symptoms.Children with mixed pain conditionsWe found that psychological therapies reduced pain intensity post-treatment for children and adolescents with mixed pain conditions (SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.67 to -0.19, P < 0.01), but these effects were not maintained at follow-up. We did find beneficial effects of psychological therapies on reducing disability for young people with mixed pain conditions post-treatment (SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.54 to -0.15) and at follow-up (SMD -0.27, 95% CI -0.49 to -0.06). We found no beneficial effect of psychological interventions on depression symptoms. In contrast, we found a beneficial effect on anxiety at post-treatment in children with mixed pain conditions (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.29 to -0.03), but this was not maintained at follow-up.Across all pain conditions, we found that adverse events were reported in seven trials, of which two studies reported adverse events that were study-related.Quality of evidenceWe found the quality of evidence for all outcomes to be low or very low, mostly downgraded for unexplained heterogeneity, limitations in study design, imprecise and sparse data, or suspicion of publication bias. This means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect, or we have very little confidence in the effect estimate; or the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Psychological treatments delivered predominantly face-to-face might be effective for reducing pain outcomes for children and adolescents with headache or other chronic pain conditions post-treatment. However, there were no effects at follow-up. Psychological therapies were also beneficial for reducing disability in children with mixed chronic pain conditions at post-treatment and follow-up, and for children with headache at follow-up. We found no beneficial effect of therapies for improving depression or anxiety. The conclusions of this update replicate and add to those of a previous version of the review which found that psychological therapies were effective in reducing pain frequency/intensity for children with headache and mixed chronic pain conditions post-treatment.

The Pivotal Role of Pediatric Psychology in Chronic Pain: Opportunities for Informing and Promoting New Research and Intervention in a Shifting Healthcare Landscape

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In the context of new efforts to formulate more comprehensive diagnostic and treatment processes for chronic pain conditions, this review aims to provide an overview of some of the most salient developments in the diagnosis and clinical treatment of pediatric chronic pain and to delineate the current and future role of clinical pediatric psychologists in these efforts.

RECENT FINDINGS

The acceptance and promotion of the multidisciplinary approach to pediatric pain management has had an especially significant impact on the field of pediatric psychology. Though chronic pain was historically conceptualized as a biomedical problem, psychology is increasingly viewed as a routine, integral, and component part of treatment. With this evolving biopsychosocial paradigm, pediatric psychology is poised to help shape the development of this field, contributing to emerging conceptual and diagnostic frameworks via consultation, research, clinical care, and education. This review discusses the role of pediatric psychologists as collaborators in emerging diagnostic and assessment frameworks, leaders in pain-related research, drivers of clinical care, and educators for providers, patients, and the lay public. With increased opportunities to enhance the conceptualization and treatment of pediatric pain, pediatric psychologists have an important role to play in reducing the prevalence and persistence of pediatric pain.

Treatment engagement in an internet-delivered cognitive behavioral program for pediatric chronic pain

Internet-delivered cognitive-behavioral therapy (iCBT) is a promising treatment for chronic pain among youth, but effect sizes are small, and strategies aimed at enhancing treatment effects are needed. Participants' engagement with the program may be an important factor in determining treatment outcomes. The primary aim of the current study was to examine the relationship between treatment engagement and treatment outcomes. Secondarily, we sought to characterize participant engagement in an iCBT program for adolescents with chronic pain and their parents. Participants included 134 adolescents randomized to the intervention arm of a controlled trial examining iCBT for chronic pain. Overall engagement with the intervention by adolescents and parents was high. Parental engagement (number of modules completed by parents and number of parent logins) predicted adolescent activity limitations change scores at post-treatment. Contrary to our expectation, adolescent treatment engagement was not predictive of treatment outcomes. Results indicate that parental engagement with the program may be an important predictor of treatment outcomes. Further research is needed to better understand influences of treatment engagement on outcomes in iCBT for youth.

Components of Effective Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Pediatric Headache: A Mixed Methods Approach

Internet-delivered treatment has the potential to expand access to evidence-based cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for pediatric headache, and has demonstrated efficacy in small trials for some youth with headache. We used a mixed methods approach to identify effective components of CBT for this population. In Study 1, component profile analysis identified common interventions delivered in published RCTs of effective CBT protocols for pediatric headache delivered face-to-face or via the Internet. We identified a core set of three treatment components that were common across face-to-face and Internet protocols: 1) headache education, 2) relaxation training, and 3) cognitive interventions. Biofeedback was identified as an additional core treatment component delivered in face-to-face protocols only. In Study 2, we conducted qualitative interviews to describe the perspectives of youth with headache and their parents on successful components of an Internet CBT intervention. Eleven themes emerged from the qualitative data analysis, which broadly focused on patient experiences using the treatment components and suggestions for new treatment components. In the Discussion, these mixed methods findings are integrated to inform the adaptation of an Internet CBT protocol for youth with headache.

Similarities and Differences Between Migraine in Children and Adults: Presentation, Disability, and Response to Treatment

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review presents findings from investigations of migraine in children and adults. Similarities and differences in the presentation, related consequences, and treatments between children and adults are reviewed.

RECENT FINDINGS

Significant similarities exist in the presentation, disability, and treatments for migraine between children and adults. Despite such similarities, many adult migraine treatments adapted for use in children are not rigorously tested prior to becoming a part of routine care in youth. Existing research suggests that not all approaches are equally effective across age groups. Specifically, psychological treatments are shown to be somewhat less effective in adults than in children. Pharmacological interventions found to be statistically significant relative to placebo in adults may not be as effective in children and have the potential to present more risk than benefit when used in youth. The placebo effect in both children and adults is robust and is need of further study. Better understanding of treatment mechanisms for all interventions across the age spectrum is needed. Although migraine treatments determined to be effective for adults are frequently adapted for use in children with little evaluation prior to implementation, existing research suggests that this approach may not be the best practice. Adaptation of adult pharmacological treatment for use in youth may present a particular risk in comparison to benefits gained. Because of the known efficacy of psychological treatments, such as cognitive behavioral therapy, more universal use of these interventions should be considered, either as first-line treatment or in combination with pill-based therapies.

Behavioral Treatment for Headaches in Children: A Practical Guide for the Child Psychologist

Headache is a highly prevalent condition and is the leading cause for school absences. Despite the rich literature supporting behavioral treatments for headache, many child psychologists mistakenly perceive that they lack appropriate training to treat children with headache. Likewise, many physicians feel underprepared to refer the child for behavioral treatments. This article serves as a primer, providing tools for the general child psychologist or mental health provider by answering frequently asked questions. First, we provide a concise background on pathophysiology and medical care for headache. We then detail aspects of behavioral interventions for headache, including a case example. We included a limited list of up-to-date references most relevant to the child psychologist who does not treat headache on a regular basis to support further reading. By reviewing this primer, local mental health professionals can provide children with headache access to high-quality, evidence-based clinical care closer to home.