A population-based survey for disabling headaches in Greece: Prevalence, burden and treatment preferences

Health equity, care access and quality in headache - part 2

BACKGROUND

Headache disorders are a global public health concern affecting diverse populations. This review examines headache service organizations in low-, middle-, and high-income countries. It addresses global challenges in pharmacological headache treatment, with a focus on safety, tolerability, reproductive and child health, and outlines disparities in accessing innovative treatments worldwide.

MAIN BODY

Organized headache services are essential due to the wide prevalence and varying severity of headache disorders. The tiered headache service model is globally recognized, although its implementation varies based on financial and workforce considerations. Headache burden affects well-being, causing disability, economic challenges, and work limitations, irrespective of location or income. All nations still require improved diagnosis and treatment, and the majority of countries face obstacles including limited access, awareness, economic barriers, and inadequate health policies. Provided adequate internet availability, telemedicine could help improve health equity by expanding access to headache care, since it can offer patients access to services without lengthy waiting times or extensive travel and can provide healthcare unavailable in underserved areas due to staff shortages. Numerous health disparities restrict global access to many headache medications, especially impacting individuals historically excluded from randomized controlled trials, such as those with cardiovascular and cerebrovascular conditions, as well as pregnant women. Furthermore, despite advancements in researching migraine treatments for young patients, the options for treatment remain limited. Access to headache treatment relies on factors like medication availability, approval, financial coverage, and healthcare provider expertise. Inadequate public awareness leads to neglect by policymakers and undertreatment by patients and healthcare providers. Global access discrepancies are exacerbated by the introduction of novel disease-specific medications, particularly impacting Asian, African, and Latin American nations excluded from clinical trials. While North America and Europe experience broad availability of migraine treatments, the majority of countries worldwide lack access to these therapies.

CONCLUSIONS

Healthcare disparities, treatment access, and medication availability are concerning issues in headache medicine. Variations in national healthcare systems impact headache management, and costly innovative drugs are widening these gaps. Healthcare practitioners and experts should acknowledge these challenges and work towards minimizing access barriers for equitable global headache care in the future.

Who cares about migraine? Pathways and hurdles in the European region - access to care III

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a highly prevalent primary headache disorder and a leading cause of disability. Difficulties in access to care during diagnostic and therapeutic journey contribute to the disease burden. Several target-specific drugs have reached the market in the past four years and have modified the treatment paradigm in migraine. The aim of this study is to provide an updated snapshot of the pathways and hurdles to care for migraine in different European countries by directly asking patients.

METHODS

In 2021 the European Migraine and Headache Alliance proposed a 39-item questionnaire that was administered online to an adult migraine population in European countries. Questions were focused on socio-demographic and migraine data, access to diagnosis and treatment, disease-related burden and the main channel for disease information.

RESULTS

A total of 3169 questionnaires were returned from 10 European countries. Responders were predominantly females, age range 25-59 years, with a migraine history longer than 10 years in 82% of cases, and with at least 8 headache days per month in 57% of cases. Respondents reported limitations in social, working and personal life during both the ictal and interictal phase. The activities mostly impaired during the attacks were driving (55%), cooking or eating (42%), taking care of family/childcare (40%) and getting medicines at the pharmacy (40%). The most frequently reported unmet need was the long delay between the first visit and migraine diagnosis: 34% of respondents had to see ≥ 4 specialists before being correctly diagnosed, and between the diagnosis and treatment prescription: > 5 years in 40% of cases. The most relevant needs in terms of quality of life were the desire for a lower migraine frequency, an effective treatment and a greater involvement in society.

CONCLUSIONS

Data from the present survey point to the existence and persistence of multiple hurdles that result in significant limitations to access to care and to the patients' social life. A close cooperation between decision makers, healthcare workers and patients is needed to overcome these barriers.

The prevalence and burden of medication overuse headache in Greece

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the prevalence and burden of medication overuse headache in a representative sample of the Greek population, aged 18-70 years old.

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional descriptive observational study performed by quantitative computer-assisted telephone interviews, using a standardized 37-item questionnaire for headaches. The prevalence of medication overuse headache was estimated in the general population and compared within the groups formed by factors such as age, gender, diagnosis of headache type, prophylactic treatment used, geographical regions, social class, workdays lost and loss of productivity.

RESULTS

1197 (12.0%) participants reported headaches affecting performance out of 10,008 interviewees. The estimated prevalence of medication overuse headache in the general population was 0.7% (95% CI: 0.5-0.9). The female to male ratio was 3.6:1. The proportion of medication overuse headache was largest in the 35-54 age group, followed by the over 55 group. The Aegean islands and Crete were the regions with the highest proportion of medication overuse headache. Among participants with headaches, the proportion of medication overuse headache was 5.8% (95% CI: 4.4%-7.1%); 6.3% (95% CI: 4.7%-7.9%) among females and 4.4% (95% CI: 2.2%-6.6%) among males. In the same headache group, the proportion of medication overuse headache by prophylactic treatment for headache was 19.0% (95% CI: 9.5%-29.1%) for recipients and 5.0% (95% CI: 3.8-6.3) for non-recipients. The mean absenteeism in people with medication overuse headache was 1.0 days/month (95% CI: 0.4-1.6) and the mean presenteeism 6.3 days/month (95% CI: 3.9-8.7). The social class stratification showed a significant effect between the medication overuse headache in the sample of the general population and the C2 class, corresponding to skilled manual labour (OR: 0.7, CI: 0.5-0.9). In people with chronic migraine, and chronic tension type headache, as differentiated by the 37-item questionnaire, the proportion of medication overuse headache in the headache group estimated to be 50.5% (95% CI: 40.8%-60.1%) and 45.9%, (95% CI: 29.9%-62.0%) respectively. The group of people with acute headache medication overuse fulfilling the rest of the diagnostic criteria for medication overuse headache, except from the number of headache days per month (≥15 days/month), had a prevalence of 2.0% (95% CI: 1.75-2.30) and a proportion of 17.0% (95% CI: 14.8%-19.1%) among people with headache. In the episodic types of headache, the proportion of acute headache medication overuse was higher in the subgroup of people with high frequency episodic migraine, 24.9% (95% CI: 18.8%-31.0%), while it was 10.8% (95% CI: 8.2%-13.5%), for the low frequency episodic migraine and 8.5% (95% CI: 5.5%-10.4%), for the episodic tension type headache.

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of medication overuse headache in the general population in Greece and its proportion among the people with headache belongs to the lower part of the range of the reported literature, while the 3.6:1 female to male ratio is in agreement with it. In the same line, the impact of absenteeism and presenteeism on the workplace renders the condition alarming socio-economic health problem demanding immediate health policy planning.

A Survey of Greek Primary Care Physicians on Their Likeability in Treating Migraines and Other Common Diseases

Background and objectives: Migraine is considered the most clinically important primary headache due to its high prevalence and significant burden. Although globally categorized as one of the leading causes of disability, it is still largely underdiagnosed and undertreated. Worldwide, migraine care is in most cases provided by primary care physicians. The aim of our study was to assess the attitudes of Greek primary care physicians toward treating migraine compared to other common neurological and general medical disorders. Methods: We surveyed 182 primary care physicians with the use of a 5-point questionnaire regarding their preference in treating ten common medical conditions, including migraine, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, upper respiratory tract infections, diabetes mellitus, lower back pain, dizziness, transient ischemic attack, diabetic peripheral neuropathy, and fibromyalgia. Results: Overall, with regards to preference to treat, migraine scored very low (3.6 ± 1.0), next to diabetic peripheral neuropathy (3.6 ± 1.0), and third from the bottom to fibromyalgia (3.25 ± 1.06). In contrast, physicians reported a much higher preference to treat hypertension (4.66 ± 0.60) and hyperlipidemia (4.6 ± 1.0). Conclusions: Our results indicate that Greek primary care physicians dislike treating migraines but also other neurological diseases. Topics for further investigation include the reasons for this dislike, any associations with poor patient satisfaction, treatment results, or both.

Results of a Web-Based Survey on 2105 Greek Migraine Patients-Second Part: Efficacy of Acute and Prophylactic Migraine Treatments and Corresponding Patients' Reported Satisfaction

Background and Objectives: The Greek Society of Migraine and Headache Patients conducted, in 2020, its second online survey, titled "Migraine in Greece-2020", after publication of the first similar online survey conducted in 2018. To compare the current findings with the corresponding data obtained in 2018, we herein release the second part of results obtained from the 2020 survey on the efficacy of preventive and symptomatic anti-migraine medications and the patients' reported satisfaction with these treatments. Materials and Methods: We surveyed 2105 migraine patients from all over Greece with the use of a 151-questions specific migraine-focused questionnaire in Greek language, which was distributed through the online research software "SurveyMonkey". Results: Triptans were mostly used with efficacy for the symptomatic relief of migraine attacks. About 2 of 3 surveyed patients had received various prophylactic oral medications and the majority of them discontinued these prophylactic medications as a result of inefficacy/safety issues. BoNTA was reported to be effective only when administration was commenced by a trained neurologist/headache specialist, while our current findings are generally comparable to those obtained in our 2018 pre-COVID-19 survey and the pandemic has not imposed any significant attitudes on migraine therapies and corresponding patients' satisfaction. Conclusion: Although a market change is anticipated with the evolving widespread use of anti-CGRPs monoclonal antibodies or gepants in the symptomatic and prophylactic treatment of migraine, it is of great interest to review published results of larger longitudinal population-based studies to further ascertain the satisfaction of patients to migraine therapies.

Results of a Web-based survey of 2105 Greek migraine patients in 2020: demographics, clinical characteristics, burden and the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the course of migraine

The Greek Society of Migraine and Headache Patients (GSMHP), maintaining a strong commitment to research and information, conducted its second web-based online survey named "Migraine in Greece—2020", following its first one conducted in 2018. The 2020 study included 2,105 migraine patients who were called to answer 151 questions. The purposes of the current research were to record the demographic and clinical characteristics of migraine patients in Greece, including the severity and effects of migraine on respondents' quality of life, as well as to survey the effects of the coronavirus pandemic on the course of migraine. Our population, internet-based study provides data that will hopefully contribute to better comprehend the clinical phenotype and course of migraine during the COVID-19 pandemic.

A systematic review with expert opinion on the role of gepants for the preventive and abortive treatment of migraine

INTRODUCTION

Gepants are small molecules targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) that have been recently introduced and are under additional clinical development as preventive and abortive treatment options for migraine.

AREAS COVERED

After providing a narrative overview of current preventive and acute treatment options for migraine and summarizing the pathophysiology of migraine attack and the role of CGRP, we performed a systematic review, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations, on trials on gepants in preventive and acute treatment of migraine. Studies and results were reviewed and discussed, and expert opinion was presented. We also collected data on relevant ongoing trials.

EXPERT OPINION

Whether direct targeting CGRP pathways within the central nervous system or indirectly modulating them from the peripheral nervous system is more effective and safer in migraine remains still unclear. The available data on the efficacy and safety of gepants suggest they may represent an abortive, and to some extent, preventive treatment option for migraine, in patients who do not respond or have adverse effects to first/second line treatments or at high risk for medication overuse headache; thus opening new therapeutic horizons.

Structured headache services as the solution to the ill-health burden of headache: 1. Rationale and description

In countries where headache services exist at all, their focus is usually on specialist (tertiary) care. This is clinically and economically inappropriate: most headache disorders can effectively and more efficiently (and at lower cost) be treated in educationally supported primary care. At the same time, compartmentalizing divisions between primary, secondary and tertiary care in many health-care systems create multiple inefficiencies, confronting patients attempting to navigate these levels (the "patient journey") with perplexing obstacles.High demand for headache care, estimated here in a needs-assessment exercise, is the biggest of the challenges to reform. It is also the principal reason why reform is necessary.The structured headache services model presented here by experts from all world regions on behalf of the Global Campaign against Headache is the suggested health-care solution to headache. It develops and refines previous proposals, responding to the challenge of high demand by basing headache services in primary care, with two supporting arguments. First, only primary care can deliver headache services equitably to the large numbers of people needing it. Second, with educational supports, they can do so effectively to most of these people. The model calls for vertical integration between care levels (primary, secondary and tertiary), and protection of the more advanced levels for the minority of patients who need them. At the same time, it is amenable to horizontal integration with other care services. It is adaptable according to the broader national or regional health services in which headache services should be embedded.It is, according to evidence and argument presented, an efficient and cost-effective model, but these are claims to be tested in formal economic analyses.

The Role of Galcanezumab in Migraine Prevention: Existing Data and Future Directions

Galcanezumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody blocking the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway by targeting the CGRP. Data from four phase-3 randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials showed that galcanezumab is superior to placebo in reducing migraine headaches, migraine-specific quality of life, and headache-related disability. Most of the adverse events (AEs) were mild to moderate and did not affect trial completion rates significantly. Along with erenumab, fremanezumab, and eptinezumab, galcanezumab forms a novel class of anti-migraine preventative treatments that is disease-specific and mechanism-based, unlike the standard ones. In addition, galcanezumab has also been shown to be effective in cluster headache, though more clinical trials are required. Overall, galcanezumab is a promising emerging treatment in migraine prophylaxis. However, it needs to be tested in larger clinical trials focused on treatment-resistant migraine. Furthermore, its safety profile, especially its potential association with an increased cardiovascular risk, needs to be established through long-term, real-world data. This review aims to give an overview of its pharmacological properties as well as to report and discuss data from clinical trials and its potential place in headache therapeutics.