Headache neuroimaging: Routine testing when guidelines recommend against them

Features and functions of decision support systems for appropriate diagnostic imaging: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Diagnostic imaging decision support (DI-DS) systems could be effective tools for reducing inappropriate diagnostic imaging examinations. Since effective design and evaluation of these systems requires in-depth understanding of their features and functions, the present study aims to map the existing literature on DI-DS systems to identify features and functions of these systems.

METHODS

The search was performed using Scopus, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and was limited to 2000 to 2021. Analytical studies, descriptive studies, reviews and book chapters that explicitly addressed the functions or features of DI-DS systems were included.

RESULTS

A total of 6,046 studies were identified. Out of these, 55 studies met the inclusion criteria. From these, 22 functions and 22 features were identified. Some of the identified features were: visibility, content chunking/grouping, deployed as a multidisciplinary program, clinically valid and relevant feedback, embedding current evidence, and targeted recommendations. And, some of the identified functions were: displaying an appropriateness score, recommending alternative or more appropriate imaging examination(s), providing recommendations for next diagnostic steps, and providing safety alerts.

CONCLUSIONS

The set of features and functions obtained in the present study can provide a basis for developing well-designed DI-DS systems, which could help to improve adherence to diagnostic imaging guidelines, minimize unnecessary costs, and improve the outcome of care through appropriate diagnosis and on-time care delivery.

The teaching of headache medicine in France: A questionnaire-based study

BACKGROUND

The treatment of patients with headache represents an important part of a neurologist's activity. It requires sufficient training for neurology residents. In France, residents in neurology can complete this training by attending specialized consultations or by participating in a postgraduate training program called "Diplôme Inter-Universitaire Migraine et Céphalées" (DIUMC).

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this cross-sectional study was to investigate the French residents' knowledge in headache medicine and the impact of different types of training in headache medicine that are available in France.

METHODS

An anonymous survey was carried out among 548 French residents in neurology.

RESULTS

The questionnaires of 121 residents (22.1%) were analyzed. Among them, 54.5% (66/121) had no complementary training apart from the internship (Group 1), 21.5% (26/121) had attended only specialized consultations (Group 2), and 24% (29/121) had participated in the DIUMC (Group 3). There was no difference between all groups regarding the knowledge of the prevalence of primary or chronic headaches. There was almost no difference between the groups in the management of episodic migraine. In contrast, the management of tension-type headache and chronic headache was better known by residents of Group 3 than residents of Group 1. In these two diseases, residents of Group 3 offered prophylactic treatment more often. Almost 29% of the residents (35/121) had read the French guidelines for the diagnosis and management of migraine. In Group 3, residents had read them significantly more often (1.6% in Group 1, 38.5% in Group 2 and 62.1% in Group 3, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

This study shows the lack of knowledge among French neurology residents regarding headache medicine. It highlights the interest of specific training programs that could improve the practical and theoretical knowledge of future neurologists.

Headache neuroimaging: A survey of current practice, barriers, and facilitators to optimal use

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to understand current practice, clinician understanding, attitudes, barriers, and facilitators to optimal headache neuroimaging practices.

BACKGROUND

Headaches are common in adults, and neuroimaging for these patients is common, costly, and increasing. Although guidelines recommend against routine headache neuroimaging in low-risk scenarios, guideline-discordant neuroimaging is still frequently performed.

METHODS

We administered a 60-item survey to headache clinicians at the Veterans Affairs health system to assess clinician understanding and attitudes on headache neuroimaging and to determine neuroimaging practice patterns for three scenarios describing hypothetical patients with headaches. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize responses, stratified by clinician type (physicians or advanced practice clinicians [APCs]) and specialty (neurology or primary care).

RESULTS

The survey was successfully completed by 431 of 1426 clinicians (30.2% response rate). Overall, 317 of 429 (73.9%) believed neuroimaging was overused for patients with headaches. However, clinicians would utilize neuroimaging a mean (SD) 30.9% (31.7) of the time in a low-risk scenario without red flags, and a mean 67.1% (31.9) of the time in the presence of minor red flags. Clinicians had stronger beliefs in the potential benefits (268/429, 62.5%) of neuroimaging compared to harms (181/429, 42.2%) and more clinicians were bothered by harms stemming from the omission of neuroimaging (377/426, 88.5%) compared to commission (329/424, 77.6%). Additionally, APCs utilized neuroimaging more frequently than physicians and were more receptive to potential interventions to improve neuroimaging utilization.

CONCLUSIONS

Although a majority of clinicians believed neuroimaging was overused for patients with headaches, many would utilize neuroimaging in low-risk scenarios with a small probability of changing management. Future studies are needed to define the role of currently used red flags given their importance in neuroimaging decisions. Importantly, APCs may be an ideal target for future optimization efforts.

The management and clinical knowledge of headache disorders among general practitioners in Norway: a questionnaire survey

BACKGROUND

General practitioners (GPs) diagnose and manage a majority of headache patients seeking health care. With the aim to understand the potential for clinical improvement and educational needs, we performed a study to investigate Norwegian GPs knowledge about headache and its clinical management.

METHODS

We invited GPs from a random sample of 130 Norwegian continuous medical education (CME) groups to respond to an anonymous questionnaire survey.

RESULTS

367 GPs responded to the survey (73% of invited CME groups, 7.6% of all GPs in Norway). Mean age was 46 (SD 11) years, with an average of 18 (SD 10) years of clinical experience. In general the national treatment recommendations were followed, while the International Classification of Headache Disorders and other international guidelines were rarely used. Overall, 80% (n = 292) of the GPs suggested adequate prophylactic medication for frequent episodic migraine, while 28% (n = 101) suggested adequate prophylactic medication for chronic tension-type headache (CTTH). Half (52%, n = 191)) of the respondents were aware that different types of acute headache medication can lead to medication-overuse headache (MOH), and 59% (n = 217) knew that prophylactic headache medication does not lead to MOH. GPs often used MRI in the diagnostic work-up. GPs reported that lack of good treatment options was a main barrier to more optimized treatment of headache patients.

CONCLUSION

The knowledge of management of CTTH and MOH was moderate compared to migraine among Norwegian GPs.

A retrospective cohort study of clinical factors, visit patterns, and demographic factors associated with use of remote communications in patients with headache

OBJECTIVE

To identify the characteristics associated with high utilization of remote communications (RCs) in patients with headache.

BACKGROUND

Patients with headache frequently communicate with their providers using secure portal messaging and telephone calls. However, clinical and demographic factors as well as visit patterns associated with RC utilization remain poorly characterized.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed data from patients with headache who were evaluated in the ambulatory neurology faculty practice at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York between January 1 and June 30, 2019. We extracted clinical and demographic characteristics, total office visits, secure MyChart portal messages, and telephone encounters from our institutional data warehouse. We defined high RC and MyChart utilization as the top tertile of RC and MyChart message volume, respectively, and assessed the relationship between patient characteristics and high RC (primary outcome), as well as high MyChart utilization (secondary outcome). We characterized the relationship between clinicodemographic characteristics and the ratio of MyChart messages to total RCs (secondary outcome).

RESULTS

We identified 1390 patients, of whom 477 (34.3%) were high RC utilizers and 321 (23.1%) were high MyChart utilizers. High RC utilizers generated 3306/3921 (84.3%) RCs. The presence of chronic headache (aOR 2.31, 95% CI 1.75-3.03, p < 0.0001), cluster headache (aOR 18.3, 95% CI 5.0-71.7, p = 0.001), and migraine (aOR 3.82, 95% CI 1.93-9.3, p = 0.011) was associated with high RC utilization. Patients ≥65 years of age were less likely to engage in MyChart messaging as a proportion of RC (191/680, 28.1%) compared with patients 18-30 years of age (243/620, 39.2%, p = 0.049) and 30-64 years of age (1172/2721, 43.1%, p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

A minority of patients with headache (477/1390; 34.3%) generated the majority (3306/3921; 84.3%) of RCs. Our findings should be validated in external patient cohorts with the objective of developing strategies to optimize RC utilization.

Management of chronic headache with referral from primary care to direct access to MRI compared with Neurology services: an observational prospective study in London

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the cost, accessibility and patient satisfaction implications of two clinical pathways used in the management of chronic headache.

INTERVENTION

Management of chronic headache following referral from Primary Care that differed in the first appointment, either a Neurology appointment or an MRI brain scan.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A pragmatic, non-randomised, prospective, single-centre study at a Central Hospital in London.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult patients with chronic headache referred from primary to secondary care.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Participants' use of healthcare services and costs were estimated using primary and secondary care databases and questionnaires quarterly up to 12 months postrecruitment. Cost analyses were compared using generalised linear models. Secondary outcomes assessed: access to care, patient satisfaction, headache burden and self-perceived quality of life using headache-specific (Migraine Disability Assessment Scale and Headache Impact Test) and a generic questionnaire (5-level EQ-5D).

RESULTS

Mean (SD) cost up to 6 months postrecruitment per participant was £578 (£420) for the Neurology group (n=128) and £245 (£172) for the MRI group (n=95), leading to an estimated mean cost difference of £333 (95% CI £253 to £413, p<0.001). The mean cost difference at 12 months increased to £518 (95% CI £401 to £637, p<0.001). When adjusted for baseline and follow-up imbalances between groups, this remained statistically significant. The utilisation of brain MRI improved access to care compared with the Neurology group (p<0.001). Participants in the Neurology group reported higher levels of satisfaction associated with the pathway and led to greater change in care management.

CONCLUSION

Direct referral to brain MRI from Primary Care led to cost-savings and quicker access to care but lower satisfaction levels when compared with referral to Neurology services. Further research into the use of brain MRI for a subset of patient population more likely to be reassured by a negative brain scan should be considered.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02753933.

Neuroimaging findings in patients with idiopathic intracranial hypertension and cerebral venous thrombosis, and their association with clinical features

Objective: To investigate the frequency of neuroimaging findings of intracranial hypertension in patients with idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH) and cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT). We also aimed to compare these findings in two patient groups and investigate the association of these findings with some clinical parameters.Methods: Patients with IIH and CVT admitted to the neurology, neuro-ophthalmology outpatient clinics, and emergency services between 2017 and 2019 were enrolled in this study. The presence of eight previously defined neuroimaging signs of intracranial hypertension were evaluated on MRIs. The values of total MRI scores were formed to use in the analyses investigating the association between neuroimaging findings and clinical parameters.Results: Twenty-three patients with proven IIH and seven patients with CVT with signs of intracranial hypertension were included in this study. Body mass index (BMI) values were higher in the IIH group than in the CVT group (31.0/25.9; p = 0.022). There were no differences in terms of gender distribution, age, ortotal MRI scores between the patient groups. The most common neuroimaging parameters found in the IIH group were the following: increased peri-optic cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) (n = 20) and optic nerve tortuosity (n = 12). There were no significant correlations between values of total MRI scores, lumbar puncture opening pressure, and BMI.Conclusion: Neuroimaging findings are useful tools with high diagnostic sensitivity in IIH. The most sensitive finding was increased peri-optic CSF. The utility of these neuroimaging correlates and their potential significance as solely diagnostic markers in IIH should be investigated in future large-scale studies.

Factors Associated with Incidental Neuroimaging Abnormalities in New Primary Headache Patients

Background and Purpose

Deciding whether or not to perform neuroimaging in primary headache is a dilemma for headache physicians. The aim of this study was to identify clinical predictors of incidental neuroimaging abnormalities in new patients with primary headache disorders.

Methods

This cross-sectional study was based on a prospective multicenter headache registry, and it classified 1,627 consecutive first-visit headache patients according to the third edition (beta version) of the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-3β). Primary headache patients who underwent neuroimaging were finally enrolled in the analysis. Serious intracranial pathology was defined as serious neuroimaging abnormalities with a high degree of medical urgency. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify factors associated with incidental neuroimaging abnormalities.

Results

Neuroimaging abnormalities were present in 170 (18.3%) of 927 eligible patients. In multivariable analysis, age ≥40 years [multivariable-adjusted odds ratio (aOR)=3.37, 95% CI=2.07–6.83], male sex (aOR=1.61, 95% CI=1.12–2.32), and age ≥50 years at headache onset (aOR=1.86, 95% CI=1.24–2.78) were associated with neuroimaging abnormalities. In univariable analyses, age ≥40 years was the only independent variable associated with serious neuroimaging abnormalities (OR=3.37, 95% CI=1.17–9.66), which were found in 34 patients (3.6%). These associations did not change after further adjustment for neuroimaging modality.

Conclusions

Incidental neuroimaging abnormalities were common and varied in a primary headache diagnosis. A small proportion of the patients incidentally had serious neuroimaging abnormalities, and they were predicted by age ≥40 years. These findings can be used to guide the performing of neuroimaging in primary headache disorders.

Neurology residents' knowledge of the management of headache

BACKGROUND

In Norway, as in most other countries, the training program for clinical neurology has no mandatory headache program. Knowledge in headache management must therefore be acquired during everyday clinical training. The objectives of this study were to investigate neurology residents' knowledge of headache.

METHODS

A questionnaire survey was undertaken among neurology residents in Norway.

RESULTS

All 17 neurological departments in Norway participated, and 143 residents responded (86%). Sixty percent were women, mean age was 32.5 years, and the respondents had an average of 28 months clinical training in neurology. Fifty-six percent knew the approximate prevalence of migraine and chronic headache. Thirty-seven percent asked their patients about disability, quality of life, and social functioning at every consultation. Further, 72% would prescribe prophylaxis for chronic tension-type headache and 97% for very frequent migraine. One third wrongly stated that use of the most common headache prophylactics could lead to medication-overuse headache. Headache diaries were used regularly by 63% for diagnostic purposes, and 73% requested an MRI for all long-lasting headaches referred to neurological outpatient clinics.

CONCLUSION

Although a major public health problem, headache knowledge is moderate at best, and its management clearly varies. There is an unmet need for a better and more structured headache training program in Norway.

Impact of early headache neuroimaging on time to malignant brain tumor diagnosis: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Neuroimaging for headaches is both common and costly. While the costs are well quantified, little is known about the benefit in terms of diagnosing pathology. Our objective was to determine the role of early neuroimaging in the identification of malignant brain tumors in individuals presenting to healthcare providers with headaches.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study using administrative claims data (2001-2014) from a US insurer. Individuals were included if they had an outpatient visit for headaches and excluded for prior headache visits, other neurologic conditions, neuroimaging within the previous year, and cancer. The exposure was early neuroimaging, defined as neuroimaging within 30 days of the first headache visit. A propensity score-matched group that did not undergo early neuroimaging was then created. The primary outcome was frequency of malignant brain tumor diagnoses and median time to diagnosis within the first year after the incident headache visit. The secondary outcome was frequency of incidental findings.

RESULTS

22.2% of 180,623 individuals had early neuroimaging. In the following year, malignant brain tumors were found in 0.28% (0.23-0.34%) of the early neuroimaging group and 0.04% (0.02-0.06%) of the referent group (P<0.001). Median time to diagnosis in the early neuroimaging group was 8 (3-19) days versus 72 (39-189) days for the referent group (P<0.001). Likely incidental findings were discovered in 3.17% (3.00-3.34%) of the early neuroimaging group and 0.66% (0.58-0.74%) of the referent group (P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Malignant brain tumors in individuals presenting with an incident headache diagnosis are rare and early neuroimaging leads to a small reduction in the time to diagnosis.

Neuroimaging utilization and findings in headache outpatients: Significance of red and yellow flags

Background

Neuroimaging for headache commonly exceeds published guideline recommendations and may be overutilized.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study of all outpatient community patients at Mayo Clinic Rochester who underwent a neuroimaging study for a headache indication in 2015. We assessed the neuroimaging utilization pattern, clinical application of red flags, and concordance with neuroimaging guidelines.

Results

We identified 190 outpatients who underwent 304 neuroimaging studies for headache. The median age was 46.5 years (range 18–91 years), 65% were female, and most reported no prior history of headache (n = 97, 51%). A minority of patients had prior brain imaging studies (n = 44, 23%) and neurological consultations for headache (n = 29, 15%). Few studies were ordered after consultation with a neurologist (n = 14, 7%). Seventy-seven percent of patients were documented to have a “red flag” justifying the imaging study. Abnormal neuroimaging findings were found in 3.1% of patients with warning flags (5/161); carotid dissection (n = 3) and reversible cerebral vasoconstrictive syndrome (n = 2). An estimated 35% of patients were imaged against guidelines.

Conclusions

The prevalence of serious causes of headache in a community practice was low despite the presence of a documented red flag symptom. Inadequate understanding or application of red flags may be contributing to recommendations to image patients against current guidelines. Interventions to reduce unnecessary neuroimaging of patients with headache need to be designed and implemented.

The Ethics of "Choosing Wisely": The Use of Neuroimaging for Uncomplicated Headache

The use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for evaluation of headache remains excessive among physicians across many specialties according to both the American Headache Society and the American College of Radiology, despite recent attempts at limiting overuse of imaging and procedures. As part of the Choosing Wisely campaign, both of these organizations have explicitly recommended against imaging in patients with uncomplicated or typical migraine headaches. Yet, the practice nevertheless remains prevalent, with estimates ranging from 12.4% to 15.9% of patients with uncomplicated headache receiving MRI in outpatient practices. The low prevalence of serious pathological findings on imaging in patients who present without other indicative symptoms and the high cost of such exams necessitates a thorough evaluation of appropriate use of MRI for headache. Here, we debate the problematic use of MRI for uncomplicated headache and put forth a discussion of possible interventions that could promote more efficient use of imaging. Overuse of imaging has the potential to open a box that cannot readily be closed, and physicians upstream of surgical decision making must remain aware of the downstream effects of their clinical choices.

The association of neurologists with headache health care utilization and costs

OBJECTIVE

To determine the association of a neurologist visit with headache health care utilization and costs.

METHODS

Utilizing a large privately insured health care claims database, we identified patients with an incident headache diagnosis (ICD-9 codes 339.xx, 784.0x, 306.81) with at least 5 years follow-up. Patients with a subsequent neurologist visit were matched to controls without a neurologist visit using propensity score matching, accounting for 54 potential confounders and regional variation in neurologist density. Co-primary outcomes were emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations for headache. Secondary outcomes were quality measures (abortive, prophylactic, and opioid prescriptions) and costs (total, headache-related, and non-headache-related). Generalized estimating equations assessed differences in longitudinal outcomes between cases and controls.

RESULTS

We identified 28,585 cases and 57,170 controls. ED visits did not differ between cases and controls (p = 0.05). Hospitalizations were more common in cases in year 0-1 (0.2%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.2%-0.3% vs 0.01%, 95% CI 0.01%-0.02%; p < 0.01), with minimal differences in subsequent years. Costs (including non-headache-related costs) and high-quality and low-quality medication utilization were higher in cases in the first year and decreased toward control costs in subsequent years with small differences persisting over 5 years. Opioid prescriptions increased over time in both cases and controls.

CONCLUSION

Compared with those without a neurologist, headache patients who visit neurologists had a transient increase in hospitalizations, but the same ED utilization. Confounding by severity is the most likely explanation given the non-headache-related cost trajectory. Claims-based risk adjustment will likely underestimate disease severity of headache patients seen by neurologists.

Precommitting to choose wisely about low-value services: a stepped wedge cluster randomised trial

Background

Little is known about how to discourage clinicians from ordering low-value services. Our objective was to test whether clinicians committing their future selves (ie, precommitting) to follow Choosing Wisely recommendations with decision supports could decrease potentially low-value orders.

Methods

We conducted a 12-month stepped wedge cluster randomised trial among 45 primary care physicians and advanced practice providers in six adult primary care clinics of a US community group practice.Clinicians were invited to precommit to Choosing Wisely recommendations against imaging for uncomplicated low back pain, imaging for uncomplicated headaches and unnecessary antibiotics for acute sinusitis. Clinicians who precommitted received 1–6 months of point-of-care precommitment reminders as well as patient education handouts and weekly emails with resources to support communication about low-value services.The primary outcome was the difference between control and intervention period percentages of visits with potentially low-value orders. Secondary outcomes were differences between control and intervention period percentages of visits with possible alternate orders, and differences between control and 3-month postintervention follow-up period percentages of visits with potentially low-value orders.

Results

The intervention was not associated with a change in the percentage of visits with potentially low-value orders overall, for headaches or for acute sinusitis, but was associated with a 1.7% overall increase in alternate orders (p=0.01). For low back pain, the intervention was associated with a 1.2% decrease in the percentage of visits with potentially low-value orders (p=0.001) and a 1.9% increase in the percentage of visits with alternate orders (p=0.007). No changes were sustained in follow-up.

Conclusion

Clinician precommitment to follow Choosing Wisely recommendations was associated with a small, unsustained decrease in potentially low-value orders for only one of three targeted conditions and may have increased alternate orders.

Trial registration number

NCT02247050; Pre-results.

Neuroimaging overuse is more common in Medicare compared with the VA

OBJECTIVE

To inform initiatives to reduce overuse, we compared neuroimaging appropriateness in a large Medicare cohort with a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) cohort.

METHODS

Separate retrospective cohorts were established in Medicare and in VA for headache and neuropathy from 2004 to 2011. The Medicare cohorts included all patients enrolled in the Health and Retirement Study (HRS) with linked Medicare claims (HRS-Medicare; n = 1,244 for headache and 998 for neuropathy). The VA cohorts included all patients receiving services in the VA (n = 93,755 for headache and 183,642 for neuropathy). Inclusion criteria were age over 65 years and an outpatient visit for incident neuropathy or a primary headache. Neuroimaging use was measured with Current Procedural Terminology codes and potential overuse was defined using published criteria for use with administrative data. Increasingly specific appropriateness criteria excluded nontarget conditions for which neuroimaging may be appropriate.

RESULTS

For both peripheral neuropathy and headache, potentially inappropriate imaging was more common in HRS-Medicare compared with the VA. Forty-nine percentage of all headache patients received neuroimaging in HRS-Medicare compared with 22.1% in the VA (p < 0.001) and differences persist when analyzing more specific definitions of overuse. A total of 23.7% of all HRS-Medicare incident neuropathy patients received neuroimaging compared with 9.0% in the VA (p < 0.001), and the difference persisted after excluding nontarget conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

Overuse of neuroimaging is likely less common in the VA than in a Medicare population. Better understanding the reasons for the more selective use of neuroimaging in the VA could help inform future initiatives to reduce overuse of diagnostic testing.

A migraine management training program for primary care providers: An overview of a survey and pilot study findings, lessons learned, and considerations for further research

BACKGROUND

There are five to nine million primary care office visits a year for migraine in the United States. However, migraine care is often suboptimal in the primary care setting. A prior study indicated that primary care physicians (PCPs) wanted direct contact with headache specialists to improve the migraine care they provide.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to further examine PCPs' knowledge of migraine management and assess the feasibility of a multimodal migraine education program for PCPs.

METHODS

We conducted a survey assessing PCPs' knowledge about migraine. We then held three live educational sessions and developed an email consultative service for PCPs to submit questions they had about migraine. We report both quantitative and qualitative findings.

RESULTS

Twenty-one PCPs completed the survey. They were generally familiar with the epidemiology of migraine (mean prevalence of migraine reported was 12.6% ± 10.1), the psychiatric comorbidities (mean prevalence of comorbid depression was 24.5% ± 16.7, mean prevalence of comorbid anxiety was 24.6% ± 18.3), and evidence-based behavioral treatments. Fifty-six percent cited cognitive behavioral therapy, 78% cited biofeedback, and 61% cited relaxation therapy as evidence based treatments. Though most were aware of the prevalence of psychiatric comorbidities, they did not routinely assess for them (43% did not routinely assess for anxiety, 29% did not routinely assess for depression). PCPs reported frequently referring patients for non-level A evidence based treatments: special diets (60%), acupuncture (50%), physical therapy (30%), and psychoanalysis (20%). Relaxation therapy was a therapy recommended by 40% of the PCPs. Only 10% reported referring for cognitive behavioral therapy or biofeedback. Nineteen percent made minimal or no use of migraine preventive medications. Seventy-two percent were unaware of or only slightly aware of the American Academy of Neurology guidelines for migraine. There was variable attendance at the educational sessions (N=22 at 1st session, 6 at 2nd session, 15 at 3rd session). Very few PCPs used the email consultative service (N=4).

CONCLUSIONS

Though PCPs are familiar with many aspects of migraine care, there is a need and opportunity for improvement. The three live sessions were poorly attended and the email consultative service was rarely used. We provide an in depth discussion of targeted areas for educational intervention, of the challenges in developing a migraine educational program for PCPs, and areas for future study.

Neurology Choosing Wisely recommendations: 74 and growing

To increase neurologist awareness and inform future efficiency efforts, we identified all neurology-related Choosing Wisely items. Items were categorized by neurologic specialty, disease/symptom, and test/treatment. Of 370 items provided by 65 medical societies, 74 (20%) items were relevant to neurologists. Twelve were duplicated by multiple societies. Items pertaining to 10 neurologic subspecialties were identified, but none for movement disorders and neuromuscular disease. While many recommendations question the use of imaging, few address other high-cost neurologic tests such as EMG/nerve conduction studies and EEG. A rapidly growing number of neurology-related Choosing Wisely recommendations exist including areas of consensus and areas with few recommendations despite high costs. Consensus items should be prioritized for near-term interventions, while areas with few recommendations represent opportunities for future research.

Prevalence, management and burden of episodic and chronic headaches--a cross-sectional multicentre study in eight Austrian headache centres

Background

Episodic and chronic headaches (EH, CH) are highly prevalent disorders. Severely affected patients are usually referred to headache centres. In Austria, at least one headache centre is available in seven of nine states, but detailed multicentre data are missing. Therefore we studied prevalence rates, use of medication and health care services, impact of headaches, and comorbid depression and anxiety.

Methods

We included consecutive patients from eight Austrian outpatient headache centres. The patients filled-in the Eurolight questionnaire. In addition, the treating neurologist completed a questionnaire on clinical diagnoses and ever-before prophylactic medications.

Results

Of 598 patients screened, 441 questionnaires were analysed (79 % female, mean age 41.1 years). According to the Eurolight algorithm, 56.4 % of the patients had EH, 38.3 % had CH and 5.2 % did not give their headache frequency. The prevalence rates of migraine, tension-type headache, and probable medication overuse headache (pMOH) were 48.5 %, 6.3 % and 15.9 %, respectively. The concordance between clinical and Eurolight diagnoses was good for EH and moderate for CH. During the preceding month, acute medication was used by 90.9 % of the patients and prophylactic medication by 34 %. Ever-before use of five standard prophylactic drugs was recorded in 52.3 %. The proportion of patients with current pharmacoprophylaxis did not differ in EH and CH, whereas ever-before use was more common in CH (62.5 % was 45,3 %, p = 0.02). Patients with CH significantly more often consulted general practitioners and emergency departments, had a lower quality of life and more often signs of depression and anxiety.

Conclusion

This study provides comprehensive data from eight Austrian headache centres for the first time. We found a substantial number of patients with CH including pMOH and its association with more common utilization of health care facilities and greater burden. The low use of prophylactic medication requires further examination.