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

The burdens attributable to primary headache disorders in children and adolescents in Iran: estimates from a schools-based study

BACKGROUND

We recently found headache disorders to be highly prevalent among children (aged 6-11 years) and adolescents (aged 12-17) in Iran (gender- and age-adjusted 1-year prevalences: migraine 25.2%, tension-type headache 12.7%, undifferentiated headache [UdH] 22.1%, probable medication-overuse headache [pMOH] 1.1%, other headache on ≥ 15 days/month [H15+] 3.0%). Here we report on the headache-attributed burden, taking evidence from the same study.

METHODS

In a cross-sectional survey, following the generic protocol for the global schools-based study led by the Global Campaign against Headache, we administered the child and adolescent versions of the Headache-Attributed Restriction, Disability, Social Handicap and Impaired Participation (HARDSHIP) structured questionnaire in 121 schools, purposively selected to reflect the country's diversities. Pupils self-completed these in class, under supervision. Headache diagnostic questions were based on ICHD-3 criteria but for the inclusion of UdH (defined as mild headache with usual duration < 1 h). Burden enquiry was across multiple domains.

RESULTS

The analysed sample (N = 3,244) included 1,308 (40.3%) children and 1,936 (59.7%) adolescents (1,531 [47.2%] male, 1,713 [52.8%] female). The non-participating proportion was 3.4%. Mean headache frequency was 3.9 days/4 weeks, and mean duration 1.8 h. Estimated mean proportion of time in ictal state was 1.1% (1.4% for migraine, 16.5% for pMOH). Symptomatic medication was consumed on a mean of 1.6 days/4 weeks. Lost school time averaged 0.4 days/4 weeks overall (2%, assuming a 5-day week), but was eleven-fold higher (4.3 days; 22%) for pMOH. For most headache types, days of reported limited activity were several-fold more than days lost from school (45% for pMOH, 25% for other H15+). Almost one in 12 parents (7.9%) missed work at least once in 4 weeks because of their son's or daughter's headache. Emotional impact and quality-of-life scores reflected these measures of burden.

CONCLUSIONS

Headache, common in children and adolescents in Iran, is associated with symptom burdens that may be onerous for some but not for most. However, there are substantial consequential burdens, particularly for the 1.1% with pMOH and the 3.0% with other H15+, who suffer educational disturbances and potentially major life impairments. These findings are of importance to educational and health policies in Iran.

The World Health Organization Intersectoral Global Action Plan on Epilepsy and Other Neurological Disorders and the headache revolution: from headache burden to a global action plan for headache disorders

The World Health Organization (WHO) Intersectoral Global Action Plan on Epilepsy and Other Neurological Disorders was developed by WHO to address the worldwide challenges and gaps in provision of care and services for people with epilepsy and other neurological disorders and to ensure a comprehensive, coordinated response across sectors to the burden of neurologic diseases and to promote brain health across life-course. Headache disorders constitute the second most burdensome of all neurological diseases after stroke, but the first if young and midlife adults are taken into account. Despite the availability of a range of treatments, disability associated with headache disorders, and with migraine, remains very high. In addition, there are inequalities between high-income and low and middle income countries in access to medical care. In line with several brain health initiatives following the WHOiGAP resolution, herein we tailor the main pillars of the action plan to headache disorders: (1) raising policy prioritization and strengthen governance; (2) providing effective, timely and responsive diagnosis, treatment and care; (3) implementing strategies for promotion and prevention; (4) fostering research and innovation and strengthen information systems. Specific targets for future policy actions are proposed. The Global Action Plan triggered a revolution in neurology, not only by increasing public awareness of brain disorders and brain health but also by boosting the number of neurologists in training, raising research funding and making neurology a public health priority for policy makers. Reducing the burden of headache disorders will not only improve the quality of life and wellbeing of people with headache but also reduce the burden of neurological disorders increasing global brain health and, thus, global population health.

Rethinking headache as a global public health case model for reaching the SDG 3 HEALTH by 2030

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development sets out, through 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), a path for the prosperity of people and the planet. SDG 3 in particular aims to ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages and includes several targets to enhance health. This review presents a "headache-tailored" perspective on how to achieve SDG 3 by focusing on six specific actions: targeting chronic headaches; reducing the overuse of acute pain-relieving medications; promoting the education of healthcare professionals; granting access to medication in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC); implementing training and educational opportunities for healthcare professionals in low and middle income countries; building a global alliance against headache disorders. Addressing the burden of headache disorders directly impacts on populations' health, as well as on the possibility to improve the productivity of people aged below 50, women in particular. Our analysis pointed out several elements, and included: moving forward from frequency-based parameters to define headache severity; recognizing and managing comorbid diseases and risk factors; implementing a disease management multi-modal management model that incorporates pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments; early recognizing and managing the overuse of acute pain-relieving medications; promoting undergraduate, postgraduate, and continuing medical education of healthcare professionals with specific training on headache; and promoting a culture that favors the recognition of headaches as diseases with a neurobiological basis, where this is not yet recognized. Making headache care more sustainable is an achievable objective, which will require multi-stakeholder collaborations across all sectors of society, both health-related and not health-related. Robust investments will be needed; however, considering the high prevalence of headache disorders and the associated disability, these investments will surely improve multiple health outcomes and lift development and well-being globally.

Outcomes and Factors Associated with Insufficient Effectiveness of Acute Treatments of Migraine in Japan: Results of the ObserVational survey of the Epidemiology, tReatment, and Care Of MigrainE (OVERCOME [Japan]) Study

BACKGROUND

Knowledge of patient outcomes and treatment effectiveness associated with acute migraine treatments in Japan is lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To describe patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and treatment effectiveness in three acute treatment groups from OVERCOME (Japan): over-the-counter (OTC) only, prescription nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs/acetaminophen (Rx-NSAIDs/ACE) only, and triptans.

METHODS

OVERCOME (Japan) was an observational, cross-sectional, population-based web survey of people with migraine (July-September 2020). PROs, including the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (MSQ), Migraine Interictal Burden Scale (MIBS-4), Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS), and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire: Migraine (WPAI-M), were compared pairwise between treatment groups. Logistic regression was used to examine treatment effectiveness.

RESULTS

The analysis included 9075 survey respondents (OTC only: n = 5791; Rx-NSAIDs/ACE only: n = 751; triptans: n = 2533). Triptan users reported the lowest MSQ scores, most severe disability (MIDAS: 20.7% versus 6.3% and 11.6%) and severe interictal burden (MIBS-4: 50.1% versus 21.2% and 19.8%), and greatest work impairment (WPAI-M: 50.4% versus 32.2% and 30.8%) compared with the OTC and Rx-NSAIDs/ACE groups, respectively. Treatment effectiveness was very poor-to-poor for 60.9%, 43.1%, and 47.6% of the triptan, OTC, and Rx-NSAIDs/ACE groups, respectively. Severe interictal burden was significantly associated with insufficient treatment effectiveness (odds ratios, severe versus no burden: 0.47 [95% confidence interval: 0.40-0.54], 0.56 [0.35-0.89], and 0.41 [0.32-0.52], for the OTC, Rx-NSAIDs/ACE, and triptan groups, respectively).

CONCLUSION

People with high migraine burden used triptans for acute treatment, but many reported poor treatment effectiveness. Education may be required to promote better treatments, including earlier introduction of migraine-specific acute and preventive medications.

One Health for Headaches: A Clinical Scientist Residence Project

Headaches are non-communicable diseases and have a well-perceived stigma and the greatest personal, biopsychosocial, and occupational burden. The focus of biomedical research has brought attention to certain aspects, such as occupational, educational, and health organization impacts, favoring aspects of therapeutic innovation. These aspects are viable in countries with a high gross domestic product but are less so in countries with a low or average level of development, where dedicated health infrastructures, advanced drugs, and even disease awareness and basic education are lacking. Here, we propose the idea of a One Health project that includes headaches, where the patient is not seen as a single unit but as a high user of public health facilities, a low-efficiency worker, and a citizen with a clear social stigma. This hypothesis of the development of a self-assessment tool is based on seven domains, whose results will be offered for validation and evaluation to stakeholders, scientific societies, research groups, and key opinion leaders, in order to provide a framework of the specific needs per area of intervention (awareness, research, and education, etc.), per geographical area.

Characterizing healthcare utilization patterns in a Danish population with headache: results from the nationwide headache in Denmark (HINDER) panel

INTRODUCTION

Worldwide, far from all of those who would benefit make use of headache services, largely because of clinical, social, and political barriers to access. Identifying the factors contributing to low healthcare utilization can generate evidence to guide health policy. Our purpose here is better to characterize healthcare utilization patterns in Denmark.

METHODS

The Headache in Denmark (HINDER) study is a nationwide cross-sectional survey of people with headache, conducted using SurveyXact (Rambøll Group A/S, Copenhagen). Healthcare utilization was assessed in a study sample generated by population screening and recruitment. Data collection occurred over two weeks, from September 23^rd until October 4^th, 2021. The questions enquired into disease characteristics, management, burden, medication intake and healthcare utilization.

RESULTS

The number of participants included in the HINDER panel was 4,431, with 2,990 (67.5%: 2,522 [84.3%] female, 468 [15.7%] male; mean age 40.9 ± 11.6 years) completing the survey. One quarter of participants (27.7%) disagreed or strongly disagreed that they were able to manage their headache attacks. Most participants (81.7%) agreed or strongly agreed that their headache was a burden in their everyday lives. The most reported acute medications, by 87.2% of participants, were simple analgesics; of note, 8.6% reported using opioids for their headache. One quarter of participants (24.4%) had never consulted a medical doctor for their headache; one in six (16.5%: more than two thirds of the 24.4%) had never done so despite agreeing or strongly agreeing that their headache was a burden in their everyday lives. Two thirds (65.3%) of participants overall, and almost three quarters (72.4%) of those with weekly headache, had tried one or more complementary or alternative therapies outside conventional medical care.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings are indicative of inadequate delivery of headache care in a country that provides free and universal coverage for all its residents. The implications are twofold. First, it is not sufficient merely to make services available: public education and increased awareness are necessary to encourage uptake by those who would benefit. Second, educational interventions in both pre- and postgraduate settings are necessary, but a prerequisite for these is a resetting of policy priorities, properly to reflect the very high population ill-health burden of headache.

The relationship between headache-attributed disability and lost productivity: 3 Attack frequency is the dominating variable

BACKGROUND

In an earlier paper, we examined the relationship between headache-attributed disability, measured as proportion of time in ictal state, and lost productivity. In a linear model, we found positive and significant associations with lost paid worktime, lost household worktime and total lost productivity (paid + household), but with high variance, which was increased when headache intensity was introduced as a factor. We speculated that analyses based on headache frequency alone as the independent variable, eliminating both the subjectivity of intensity estimates and the uncertainties of duration, might show stronger associations.

METHODS

Focusing on migraine, we used individual participant data from 16 countries surveyed either in population-based studies or in the Eurolight project. These data included frequency (headache days/month), usual attack duration (hours), usual headache intensity ("not bad", "quite bad", "very bad") and lost productivity from paid and household work according to enquiries using the Headache-Attributed Lost Time (HALT) questionnaire. We used multiple linear regressions, calculating regression equations along with unstandardized and standardized regression coefficients. We made line and bar charts to visualize relationships.

RESULTS

Both frequency and intensity were significant predictors of lost productivity in all multiple linear regressions, but duration was a non-significant predictor in several of the regressions. Predicted productivity in paid work decreased among males by 0.75-0.85 days/3 months for each increase of 1 headache day/month, and among females by 0.34-0.53 days/3 months. In household chores, decreases in productivity for each added day/month of headache were more similar (0.67-0.87 days/3 months among males, 0.83-0.89 days/3 months among females). Visualizations showed that the impact of duration varied little across the range of 2-24 h. The standardized regression coefficients demonstrated that frequency was a much better predictor of lost productivity than intensity or duration.

CONCLUSION

In the relationship between migraine-attributed impairment (symptom burden) and lost productivity, frequency (migraine days/month) is the dominating variable - more important than headache intensity and far more important than episode duration. This has major implications for current practice in headache care and for health policy and health-resource investment. Preventative drugs, grossly underutilized in current practice, offer a high prospect of economic benefit (cost-saving), but new preventative drugs are needed with better efficacy and/or tolerability.

Applying a biopsychosocial model to migraine: rationale and clinical implications

Migraine is a complex condition in which genetic predisposition interacts with other biological and environmental factors determining its course. A hyperresponsive brain cortex, peripheral and central alterations in pain processing, and comorbidities play a role from an individual biological standpoint. Besides, dysfunctional psychological mechanisms, social and lifestyle factors may intervene and impact on the clinical phenotype of the disease, promote its transformation from episodic into chronic migraine and may increase migraine-related disability.Thus, given the multifactorial origin of the condition, the application of a biopsychosocial approach in the management of migraine could favor therapeutic success. While in chronic pain conditions the biopsychosocial approach is already a mainstay of treatment, in migraine the biomedical approach is still dominant. It is instead advisable to carefully consider the individual with migraine as a whole, in order to plan a tailored treatment. In this review, we first reported an analytical and critical discussion of the biological, psychological, and social factors involved in migraine. Then, we addressed the management implications of the application of a biopsychosocial model discussing how the integration between non-pharmacological management and conventional biomedical treatment may provide advantages to migraine care.

Persistence, use of resources and costs in patients under migraine preventive treatment: the PERSEC study

Background

Migraine represents a serious burden for national health systems. However, preventive treatment is not optimally applied to reduce the severity and frequency of headache attacks and the related expenses. Our aim was to assess the persistence to traditional migraine prophylaxis available in Spain and its relationship with the healthcare resource use (HRU) and costs.

Methods

Retrospective observational study with retrospective cohort design of individuals with migraine treated with oral preventive medication for the first time from 01/01/2016 to 30/06/2018. One-year follow-up information was retrieved from the Big-Pac™ database. According to their one-year persistence to oral prophylaxis, two study groups were created and describe regarding HRU and healthcare direct and indirect costs using 95% confidence intervals (CI). The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed as a sensitivity analysis. Patients were considered persistent if they continued on preventive treatment until the end of the study or switched medications within 60 days or less since the last prescription. Non-persistent were those who permanently discontinued or re-initiated a treatment after 60 days.

Results

Seven thousand eight hundred sixty-six patients started preventive treatment (mean age (SD) 48.2 (14.8) and 80.4% women), of whom 2,545 (32.4%) were persistent for 6 months and 2,390 (30.4%) for 12 months. Most used first-line preventive treatments were antidepressants (3,642; 46.3%) followed by antiepileptics (1,738; 22.1%) and beta-blockers (1,399; 17.8%). The acute treatments prescribed concomitantly with preventives were NSAIDs (4,530; 57.6%), followed by triptans (2,217; 28.2%). First-time preventive treatment prescribers were mostly primary care physicians (6,044; 76.8%) followed by neurologists (1,221; 15.5%). Non-persistent patients required a higher number of primary care visits (mean difference (95%CI): 3.0 (2.6;3.4)) and days of sick leave (2.7 (0.8;4.5)) than the persistent ones. The mean annual expenditure was €622 (415; 829) higher in patients who not persisted on migraine prophylactic treatment.

Conclusions

In this study, we observed a high discontinuation rate for migraine prophylaxis which is related to an increase in HRU and costs for non-persistent patients. These results suggest that the treatment adherence implies not only a clinical benefit but also a reduction in HRU and costs.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s10194-022-01448-2.

The Global Campaign turns 18: a brief review of its activities and achievements

The Global Campaign against Headache, as a collaborative activity with the World Health Organization (WHO), was formally launched in Copenhagen in March 2004. In the month it turns 18, we review its activities and achievements, from initial determination of its strategic objectives, through partnerships and project management, knowledge acquisition and awareness generation, to evidence-based proposals for change justified by cost-effectiveness analysis.

Annual indirect cost savings in patients with episodic or chronic migraine: post-hoc analyses from multiple galcanezumab clinical trials

AIM

This post-hoc analysis estimated annual indirect cost savings with galcanezumab (GMB) treatment in patients with episodic migraine (EM) or chronic migraine (CM).

METHODS

Data from 4 randomized, Phase 3, double-blind (DB), placebo (PBO)-controlled studies of GMB were analyzed: EVOLVE-1 and EVOLVE-2 (EM, 6-months DB), REGAIN (CM, 3-months DB), and CONQUER (previous failure of 2-4 migraine preventive medication categories, 3-months DB). Indirect costs were calculated at baseline and Month 3 using the first 2 items in Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS): (A + B)/60*country specific annual wage (A = days of missed work/school; B = days of reduced productivity at work/school; assuming 60 working days in 3 months). All costs were annualized and expressed in international dollars (Int$) in 2018. ANCOVA models estimated the indirect cost savings as a change from baseline. Secondary analyses determined cost savings by employment and responder status.

RESULTS

Patients (>80% females) from EVOLVE-1 and -2 (n = 1,201; mean age 41.9 years), REGAIN (n = 759; mean age 41.3 years), and CONQUER (n = 453; mean age ∼46.0 years) were analyzed. GMB showed significant indirect cost savings for EM (Int$6256, p < .0001) and CM (Int$7129, p = .0002), with substantial savings for patients with previous failure of 2-4 migraine preventive medication categories (EM: Int$5664, p = .0030; CM: Int$5181, p = .1300). Compared with PBO, GMB showed significantly greater indirect cost savings for EM (p = .0156) and patients with previous failure of 2-4 migraine preventive medication categories (p = .0340). Employed patients with CM (p = .0018) and with previous failure of 2-4 migraine preventive medication categories (p < .0001) had significant cost savings after GMB treatment. GMB showed significant indirect cost savings in patients with a reduction in migraine headache days.

CONCLUSION

GMB treatment resulted in annual indirect cost savings in patients with EM, CM, and with previous failure of 2-4 migraine preventive medication categories, with similar observations in the sensitivity analyses.

The relationship between headache-attributed disability and lost productivity: 2. Empirical evidence from population-based studies in nine disparate countries

Background

Headache disorders are disabling, with major consequences for productivity, yet the literature is silent on the relationship between headache-attributed disability and lost productivity, often erroneously regarding the two as synonymous. We evaluated the relationship empirically, having earlier found that investment in structured headache services would be cost saving, not merely cost-effective, if reductions in headache-attributed disability led to > 20% pro rata recovery of lost productivity.

Methods

We used individual participant data from Global Campaign population-based studies conducted in China, Ethiopia, India, Nepal, Pakistan and Russia, and from Eurolight in Lithuania, Luxembourg and Spain. We assessed relationships in migraine and probable medication-overuse headache (pMOH), the most disabling common headache disorders. Available symptom data included headache frequency, usual duration and usual intensity. We used frequency and duration to estimate proportion of time in ictal state (pTIS). Disability, in the sense used by the Global Burden of Disease study, was measured as the product of pTIS and disability weight for the ictal state. Impairment was measured as pTIS * intensity. Lost productivity was measured as lost days (absence or < 50% productivity) from paid work and corresponding losses from household work over the preceding 3 months. We used Spearman correlation and linear regression analyses.

Results

For migraine, in a linear model, we found positive associations with lost paid worktime, significant (p < 0.05) in many countries and highly significant (p < 0.001) in some despite low values of R² (0–0.16) due to high variance. With lost household worktime and total lost productivity (paid + household), associations were highly significant in almost all countries, although still with low R² (0.04–0.22). Applying the regression equations for each country to the population mean migraine-attributed disability, we found pro rata recoveries of lost productivity in the range 16–56% (> 20% in all countries but Pakistan). Analysing impairment rather than disability increased variability. For pMOH, with smaller numbers, associations were generally weaker, occasionally negative and mostly not significant.

Conclusion

Relief of disability through effective treatment of migraine is expected, in most countries, to recover > 20% pro rata of lost productivity, above the threshold for investment in structured headache services to be cost saving.

Burden of Migraine in Japan: Results of the ObserVational Survey of the Epidemiology, tReatment, and Care Of MigrainE (OVERCOME [Japan]) Study

Introduction

The ObserVational survey of the Epidemiology, tReatment, and Care Of MigrainE study in Japan (OVERCOME [Japan]) assessed the impact and burden of migraine in Japan.

Methods

OVERCOME (Japan) was a cross-sectional, observational, population-based web survey of Japanese people with migraine conducted between July and September 2020. The burden and impact of migraine were assessed using the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS), Migraine-Specific Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (MSQ), Migraine Interictal Burden Scale (MIBS-4), and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment-Migraine scale. Results were stratified by average number of monthly headache days (0–3, 4–7, 8–14, ≥ 15).

Results

In total, 17,071 Japanese people with migraine completed the survey. Of these, 14,033 (82.2%) met International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition criteria for migraine and 9667 (56.6%) reported a physician diagnosis of migraine. Overall, 20.7% of respondents experienced moderate-to-severe disability (MIDAS). Moderate-to-severe interictal burden (MIBS-4) was experienced by 41.5% of respondents. MSQ scores in all domains were lowest in respondents with the most frequent headaches (≥ 15 monthly headache days) and highest in those with the lowest frequency headaches (≤ 3 monthly headache days), indicating poorer quality of life in those with more frequent headaches. Work time missed due to migraine (absenteeism) increased with increasing headache frequency, from 3.8 to 6.2%; presenteeism affected 29.8–49.9% of work time. Although migraine burden was greatest in people with the most frequent headaches, those with the lowest headache frequency still experienced substantial disability, interictal burden, and impacts on productivity and quality of life. There was also substantial unmet need for migraine care: 36.5% of respondents had ever hesitated to seek medical care for their headaches, and 89.8% had never used preventive medication.

Conclusion

In Japan, the burden of migraine and barriers to migraine care are substantial. Improving patient awareness and healthcare provider vigilance may help improve patient outcomes.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40120-021-00305-9.